White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism

Its defining tenet holds that European-Americans need their own ethnostate to prevent their destruction by the anti-white forces controlling the political and social systems of the United States and that such an ethnostate is the necessary precondition for re-asserting America’s European destiny. It is thus not an aspiration for racial supremacy or segregation, not a form of racial hatred or eugenic social engineering, but rather a movement of thought, akin to historic nationalism, which champions the New World’s “white nation.”

Relatedly, white nationalism has an important anti-Jewish facet because Organized Jewry is a powerful (some claim the most powerful) force compelling the present ethnocidal assault on European America.

This anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic facet, however, is but one aspect of white nationalism. The struggle — with ideas today, in the streets tomorrow, through force of arms in the end — to establish a European ethnostate in North America entails, by definition, resisting not just the alien forces threatening white life, but, more important, consciously affirming and asserting America’s European destiny.

As a critique of alien cultural distortion, anti-Semitism, then, may be a necessary part of the larger “national” struggle — but it is neither the aim of that struggle nor its essence.

A great many of those associated with white nationalism, however, not just fixate on the “inner enemy” to the exclusion of everything else, they tend to define their project in terms of the “Semitism” they oppose. The result, I contend, distorts or side-tracks white nationalism’s higher purpose.

* * *

If anti-Semitism is the natural “anti-body” that America’s cultural organism produces to defend itself, then to see white nationalism solely in its terms is to think that it is the opposite of the “body” it resists. This makes the “Aryan” the negative of the Jew, for anti-Semites assume not just a certain symmetry with their Semitic enemy, they inadvertently turn white nationalism into a sort of inverse Semitism

More specifically, a Judeo-centric white nationalism promotes a strictly nullifying orientation in so far as it seeks to overthrow Jewish supremacy not on the basis of anything positive or native, but solely because of its destructive – “parasitic” – impact on white life. This negative orientation is supportable, though, only as long as its costs are ignored, for it leaves whites totally unconscious of what they are fighting for and, when exaggerated, fosters pathologies of another kind.

A critique of Jewish power that serves white interest would inevitably go beyond negativity to stress the informing and transcendent values which Jewish interests (among other contending forces) threaten.

Judeo-centric white nationalism, however, rarely attains such levels and, as a dogma oblivious to every differing view, usually ends up discrediting the nationalist cause.

As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed – for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis – just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.

So positioned, it can’t see that Jewish power is aided, abetted, and made possible by the very principles undergirding America’s liberal order — that Jewish power involves “Aryan” compliance, and that this compliance, routinely venerated in America’s Low Church worship of Mammon, emphasizes quantifying factors indifferent not just to a man’s qualities, but to the “rights” of blood and spirit.

Worse, an inordinate number of Judeo-centric white nationalists tend to share the same antipathy to Europe (our Fatherland) as do the Jews and consider materialism, egoism, and democratic corruption, inherent to America’s liberal project, as something uniquely Jewish, and not, as the most cursory examination of the historical record shows, an organic offshoot of the liberal system created by Americans of European Christian (mainly Calvinist) extraction.

For this reason, I often wonder if obsessing about Jews doesn’t cause certain culture-distortions in those so involved and that the white nationalism of these obsessives neglects, as a consequence, all that is positive and life-affirming in our own project — naively assuming, as they do, that a solution to the Jewish problem is all it will take to ensure a future for white children in North America.

Totally oblivious, then, to the fact that America’s shallow, latently anti-European culture favors Jewish methods and Jewish concerns, these blinkered anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man – unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

Knowing only their caricature of the inner enemy, they also either ignore the outer enemy (the colored world), treat it as a friend, or consider it a mere adversary. The West’s 1400-year conflict with Islam and its various conflictual relations with the non-white world are thereby reduced to Jewish machinations, dismissed, in effect, as an actual danger to Europe’s destiny and to the True America born of Europe.

This unbalanced, all-consuming Judeo-centric white nationalism is above all politically timid, emphasizing Jewish machinations, but neglecting the ways in which the American project itself betrays our European destiny. It thus conveniently ignores the revolutionary changes that whites will need to make, in themselves and in the larger order, if they are ever to throw off the alien, anti-white forces governing the United States and resume their European destiny. In this sense, Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

In sum, Jew-obsessed nationalism:

is purely negative and potentially distorting;

fosters a Manichaeism that neglects every other factor responsible for white dispossession;

ignores that the culture of critique and other anti-white stratagems are inherent to America’s modern liberal order;

neglects the outer enemy;

threatens to turn white nationalism into an inverse Semitism;

and, in the last instance, has no real idea of what white nationalists are fighting for.

–2010

Related

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

126 Comments

Lest this article be misrepresented: I agree that White Nationalism is not anti-Semitism, in the strict sense that since White Nationalism is a positive ideology, it cannot be reduced to anti-Semitism or anti-anythingism. Yet, of necessity anti-Semitism must be a part of White Nationalism, since the Jews are a huge part of the problem. Jewish enmity and influence constitute a large part of the cause for our race’s decline. And the organized Jewish community is the principal opposition to all healthy pro-white policies. Thus no form of White Nationalism that ignores the Jewish question offers us a complete account of our race’s predicament or a realistic plan of action to regain control of our destiny. We cannot fight an enemy we will not name. We cannot defeat an enemy we will not fight.

I’m surprised. I didn’t think you would post it, given your own view of the Jews.

The anti-Semites, though, are totally out of control and need a wake-up call; I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.

In any case, a shit storm will probably follow

I’m ready for it and will try, in my responses to the inevitable slurs, to distance myself somewhat from C-C so as not to cast doubt on your own a-S credentials.

I know this was a difficult piece for you to post — I salute you for it.

While I read the original essay with some charity, this response is extremely off-putting.

I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.

I’m always skeptical of proposed purges like this. (It reminds me of Kurtagic’s worst proposal ever — a purging of so-called “misogynists” in the movement.) The proposed purges always seem to target people further on the right than wherever the writer places himself. It’s always some measure of , “I represent the sane, rational position, but you, you’re the nutty extremist who is delegitimizing our position.” How convenient for the writer. The left never castigates its extremists for being too far left. Rather, it embraces them as the conscience of its movement.

I’d rather see a more logical kind of purge proposed — a purge of commentators on various web sites who clearly write what they do to promote Zionism among WN or who slyly attempt to demoralize WN. (And no, this is not a dig at the writer of this article.)

Besides, I find zero indication that purging so-called anti-Semites will do a blessed thing for WN. Did it help American Renaissance? Whom exactly are we going to “convince”? For SWPL types, anything less than “race is a cultural construct” is deal-breaking “racism.” To believe that they’re just one less Hitler-praising comment away from joining our cause is delusional.

I can only speak for myself, but it was only as I learned of the extent of the tribe’s power and how it has been used to destroy traditional Western culture that I realized the merits of the WN position.

As for “ignorance, reductionism, and resentment,” well, I’m likely not as well-travelled in anti-Semitic circles as the writer, but I’d rather that anti-Semitic arguments be evaluated rationally, one at a time, on their merits, rather than there being any kind of blanket condemnation which can only undermine the good as well as the bad.

Is identifying the source of our problems “ignorance” or, rather, wisdom — for ignoring it seems to be the true mark of ignorance?

Is zeroing in on it “reductionism” or, rather, much-needed critical focus?

And if someone resents a people for, you know, destroying their entire culture, I rather think that such resentment is amply justified and could be an engine for activism.

Who was it that said that if “anti-semitism” didn’t exist, the Jews would have to invent it? Well, the Jews don’t have to work so hard these days: s0-called “White Nationalists” are doing it for them. And in the process, missing the point of Nationalism, which is about “Us”, not about “Them”.

A good part of the “jewish identity” is a function of who they hate, and who they hate are “anti-semites”. By centering Jewish identity and concerns in our discourse, we are playing the game on a field they control. We should be playing out our discourse on our own field.

If we are interested in the best for European peoples, we need to frame our discussion with European people at the center. Rather than us rallying around the fringes of Judea and throwing spitballs at Jews, we should be centering ourselves in our European identities and talking about what’s good for us, and what’s not good for us. From this stance, we can point out behavior by others, including Jews, which is not good for us. This is very different from saying “you’re bad” to Jews, or whoever.

It’s about US, it’s not about them! “Anti-semitism” is, by definition, about Jews. They love to be the center of things. Deny them that pleasure if you feel their behavior is bad for Europeans. Do this by phrasing everything you say in terms of Euro-centricity, or White-centricity. Don’t go onto their territory (anti-semitism), and then have to play defense, saying “no, I’m not anti-semitic because …” Stay on the Home field, and say “In my opinion as a White European, this sort of behavior/policy/etc. is not good for my people and culture.”

One wonders just what people are thinking when they say “White Nationalism”, thinking they are doing something pro-White, and then immediately rush into a trap set for them by anti-Whites!

Claiming that “anti-semitism” is a necessary part of “White nationalism” is great …. if you think you can win the card game while using the opponent’s marked deck.

We have argued that on a purely logocentric level that there is a vast difference between the white voice engaged in judeo-centrism, afro-centrism, latino-centrism, asio-centriism, or islamo-centricism, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the white voice engaged in white centrism. We even call it white authenticity.

Good news for everyone, however, is that anything disliked about Ashkenazim or anyone else can be discussed fully and openly in a white-centric way. Takes a little thought is all.

Hi Gregor: Both the Other-centric model and the White-centric model will work, but a thoroughly Other-centric model is not about us and our kids, it is about the nature and characteristics of the Other, which leaves a gaping hole in our analyses as to our nature and characteristics.

We’re going to have to tackle the latter question sooner or later, and not in terms of “who’s to blame,” but in terms of our future and that of our children. It’s pretty clear as to the basics of what we will have to do: e.g, withdraw support for Asian wars that our killing our children disproportionately, restrict our liability for taxes to support the multi-racial society in which we find ourselves, attackback at those in this multi-racial society who see fit to slur and smear us and our children, cultivate new living and schooling efforts to save our children from blighted lives, and do all this under the radar of an intrusive and hostile government…at the beginning.

Whether we end up with a vertical solution (nationalism) or a horizontal solution (American-wide organizations), will be determined by our children, not by us. We will lose a lot of us, but the survivors will have a sound governmental and social welfare basis to go forward if we stay true.

The language we use to establish connections with that portion of the diverse white Americans who are capable of seeing the holes in the lifeboat we call America will be extremely critical…so critical in fact that every message to our kin will have to be measured within concentric circles…a gentle message to the ignorant, a harder message to the newbies, and a life-and-death message to those of us who appreciate our peril.

There hasn’t been time for the N&J approach in decades, we need a purely W approach to guide us out of this mess.

“As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed – for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis – just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.”

I have been interested in White Nationalism for many years, but I don’t recognize the type of “Jew-obsessed nationalism” you describe. In fact, I have never seen it. Can you give a few examples?

For a long time, I thought that the idea of reducing our problems to a “single Jewish cause” was merely a Jewish caricature of anti-Semitism, an easily refuted straw man. But then on VNN or Majority Rights, or maybe Occidental Dissent, I actually encountered people who seemed in earnest about pushing the idea that there is a “single Jewish cause” of our racial predicament. That pretty much defines the idea of Jewish reductionism/obsessiveness. But even if no such people existed, clear thinking requires that one identify and avoid such a possibility.

The idea of a “single Jewish cause” is probably more widespread as an assumption than as an explicit idea. Although few would claim that the Jews are exclusively responsible for all the evils that we suffer, many effectively address issues in terms of reductionist anti-Semitism.

Yes, and if that is true, then it is certainly necessary to articulate the idea. It is one of those ideas that one disavows as soon as one consciously states it. But that does not mean that it was not unconsciously structuring one’s thinking.

How confusing it is to read Alex Linder, who sees nothing wrong with whites and blames all evil on the tribe (sometimes paranoidly as in the 9/11 case), and then skip thru a recent Hunter Wallace thread saying exactly the opposite: that Jews are… almost irrelevant!

Today I received MacDonald’s first book of his trilogy and I devoured the first chapter. I’ll certainly order the second one soon.

Couldn’t the basic etiology of Western malaise be twofold? Surely something got horribly wrong within the white psyche with its deranged altruism (secular liberalism as the last and terminal phase of Christendom). But the whites’ deranged altruism combines perfectly with James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence (this weekend I’ll probably add an entry quoting Bowery).

I give up: there’s no way to solve the conundrum thru what I call “classic psychics”. We need “quantum psychics”: sometimes Western malaise seems to be the product of whites’ liberalism (light behaves as a particle) but sometimes it seems to be the product of Jewish virulence (light behaves as a wave).

I just can’t understand our present dilemma thru a classical approach anymore. As I said, I give up. Perhaps my forthcoming reading of the two MacDonald books will clarify matters a bit…?

No article that I am aware of. But the link you provided summarizes one of the best podcasts I’ve ever listen in Jim Giles’ interviews. The first hour is a long Bowery dissertation about economy. But the second touches the JQ (here).

The Bowery dissertation was an attempt to find an alternative way to Linder’s exterminationist solution to the JP, introduced by Giles. A fascinating interview!

I agree that James Bowery’s thoughts on the Jewish issue (along with other issues) are among the best even though they are scattered among various blog posts, comments, interviews rather than a long written exposition.

Em, er, ah, Just having read The WASP Question when you say This unbalanced, all-consuming Judeo-centric white nationalism is above all politically timid, emphasizing Jewish machinations, but neglecting the ways in which the American project itself betrays our European destiny. would you be referring to how our main religion was changed by our own people and transferred into the state, is now our enemy? Indeed, Fraser seems to be saying that the Puritans – America’s founding stock – with their spirit of capitalism, launched the Novus Ordo Seclorus which is now destroying us. That the Anglican Church which ought to be America’s national church has been replaced by the corporations who are now our cultural carriers? Perhaps O’Meara could elaborate – I’m sure he will – or even Fraser himself? O’Meara has certainly raised an interesting question in the spirit of I have met the enemy and it is us.

(I haven’t read all comments so I apologize if I say something out of context)

I think we should start rebutting the term ‘anti-semitic’, which in itself is a very convenient tool (i.e. conversation stopper) for them to put us into little ‘racist’ compartments.
First we should ask what a real ‘Semite’ is, that is, what’s the real racial definition of a ‘Semite’.

I think these kinds of questions put things in a very different perspective.

While I agree with the premise of this article as a hypothetical, I must say that as far as I’ve been watching the alternative right, or the radical-traditionalist right, or whatever you wish to call it, the problem is certainly not an overrepresentation of so-called anti-semitism, but the opposite: a widespread refusal to acknowledge the central role of the tribe in undermining Western culture, both historically and at present.

American Renaissance won’t even touch the issue. Sites like Alternative Right, Takimag, CHT, TAC, etc., are so populated by Zionist commentators — both overt, and covert in the form of concern trolls — that if an article even hints at criticism of Israel, let alone of the Jews in general, it is undermined and subverted by scores of sly commentators. Even TOO is not immune to this.

Thus, you have truly pernicious phenomena arising such as many alt-righters making insane statements such as “We did this to ourselves” (i.e., whites destroyed their own culture — as if no outside force had destroyed it from without and poisoned it from within), or the alt right steadily being converted into an almost neocon level of support for Israel.

Even leaving aside the lack of principle that such cowering before powers-that-be betrays, it’s bad policy too. The Palestinians are so very obviously being victimized that even people who aren’t predisposed to WN can recognize Jewish injustice in this sphere. And the financial crisis is priming a wide audience for a criticism of self-interesting Jewish power that undermines its host state.

I don’t disagree with the article as a hypothetical problem that could arise if the movement flourished, and I certainly agree with the Kurtagic position that we need to be fighting for something not just against something. But at the moment, this article seems to be addressing a problem that doesn’t exist. If anything, a more sensible discussion of these issues is needed. Dr. MacDonald is doing it the right way, but he can’t do it alone.

And isn’t this as clear an example as it gets of obfuscating the Jewish question? To draw attention from the real Jewish question, as discussed by MacDonald, yourself, Revilo Oliver, and all other real writers on the subject; and instead draw attention to some pseudo-phenomenon which only is discussed by people (to put it mildly) critical of discussing the Jewish question. (Greg, you say you have seen it, but I still have not. And that means that if it exists, as you say it does, then it can not be very widespread or important.)

“As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed – for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis – just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.”

I still ask you, O’Meara, who defends that proposition? Who says that? Give me a real writer, not some internet troll, or something like that. If you have taken the time to write about this huge problem, giving an example can’t be that hard.

I think that you raise valid questions. The tendency O’Meara is attacking may be real, but it is not all that important. I feel that we are rushing to defend our Western frontier when the enemy is massing in the East.

John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”

For an Orthodox Christian the ‘inner logic’ of our history started at the foot of the Cross and the last 2,000 years have been the unfolding of that history – a war between those who serve Satan and those who serve Christ. The rest, the vast, faceless majority are simply standing by, evermore dumbfounded and evermore Judaized.

In case I come across as ambiguous, I agree wholeheartedly with the article. The corrupting Jew doesn’t come to a blank sheet of paper as those who would like to blame the Jew for everything seem to imply. No, he comes to someone who allows himself to be corrupted. As a previous comment (Petronius) pointed out, don’t forget the inner enemy.

Dr Kevin MacDonald, in his essay on Immigration in America, has shown with all the proofs necessary for scholarly discussion that it was the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress, with their front men, Senators Jacob Javits and Emanuel Cellar, that brought on the *destruction* of White America through their much lobbied (and payed for) “The Open Immigration Law of 1965.”

The demonization of whites which inculcated “guilt” into white consciousness has been the strategic work of Jewish Hollywood and the Jewish-owned print and TV media — as well as the takeover of academia by Jewish intellectual movements — again outlined in painstaking detail by MacDonald in his book, “Culture of Critique.”

Thus, although I am a big fan of Michael O’Meara, I agree with Greg Johnson that White Nationalism MUST have as its key component an anti-Jewish thrust, for apart from Jewry’s control of the media, Capitol Hill, and academia, the movement would have a gasping chance to succeed.

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.

Several centuries before the Jews became a power in the US, the Yankees had already embarked on a campaign to de-Europeanize their New World — culturally, economically, socially, and ( later, especially in the 20th century) racially. To focus exclusively or mainly on the Jews (no matter how nefarious their distortions) is an exercise either in reductionism, ignorance, or dishonesty.

America (like Christianity) is a large, complex enterprise that can’t be reduced to a single explanatory conception. The Cavalier South, the Scots-Irish borderland, Irish-Catholic and other “unmeltable” ethnics — all resisted the Yankees and sought to create a non-patricidal America. It’s to this repressed America that we need now to look for our standards and inspiration — not the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.

Yankee America — or, if you like, Jew America — was founded on a rejection of Europe and based on the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Was it coincidental that this sort of bloodless, spiritless, market-based enterprise enabled Jews, given their economic acumen, to thrive and eventually dominate.

To blame our present situation on the Jews is … (I’ll let you supply the negative adjectives).

@ I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.

Something analogous to this is what Hunter Wallace was saying in the thread I linked above, but I don’t like to get my intellectual stuff from OD. My dilemma is simple. As I said, yesterday I received one of MacDonald’s thick, academic books. Michael: can you kindly point out to the bibliographical references that may serve as a counter-hypothesis to MacDonald’s thesis? I’d order it right away from Amazon Books! Yes: I’ve read some of your essays but I guess we badly need a heavy treatise that purports to demonstrate that these factors you mention were more influential. (They might well have been, but I definitively need a scholarly source.)

As I also said above, I’m confused. When I think about how after the fall of the Roman Empire the Christians burnt entire libraries of classical authors; when I think about the French Revolution and the Independence of so-called “Mexico” from Spain perpetrated by pure Iberian whites (as shown in this CC article), or the Secession War in the States, I cannot blame any Jew of course. But when I think about the Russian Revolution, and now that I am translating to Spanish the CofCchapter on how Jewish pressure groups strenuously fought to open the gates to non-Aryans into the States, blame is obvious.

How would you attribute percentages of blame to the Jews vis-à-vis the factors you mention? 80/20 percent Gentile/Jew blame? 90/10? I ask this question because it seems to me that many nationalists attribute inverse percentages, say 20/80 on the Jews; with some even 95% or more. (Linder also blames what he calls “Christ-insanity”, which means that he doesn’t believe in attributing 100% of blame to the tribe.)

@ To focus exclusively or mainly on the Jews (no matter how nefarious their distortions) is an exercise either in reductionism, ignorance, or dishonesty.

It is dishonesty if we are approaching nationalism thru the POV of an intellectual, which requires precision. But what about Linder’s populist claim, “Just say no to cleverness”?:

Remember the mantra: smart people always undersimplify. Let’s not make that mistake. Our people need know only that jews are bad and Whites are good. Everything the majority of our people hates we peg to the jews, and quite justifiably so. Everything they love we tie to the existence of a racial-oriented state.

He is basically saying that a political movement must be completely parallel from any think-tank nationalism, just as storm troopers were independent from the Humboldt University of Berlin. Linder also says that the masses of angry whites (IMO, after the dollar crashes in the near future and we suffer runaway inflation) will need a simple message, just what the Nazis did in the 1930s after hyperinflation.

Goebbels and the Nazis might have been reductionists, ignorant, dishonest and even immoral. But didn’t the generalizing and overstating seem to work to galvanize the masses?

But since I am no storm trooper I must ask you and other commenters of this thread: How would you attribute percentages of blame to the Jews vis-à-vis the factors O’Meara mentions?

As Dr. MacDonald has conclusively shown, the 1965 immigration law that opened the floodgates came about as a result of Jewish lobbying. If the previous, restrictive, immigration legislation had remained in place Americans would not be in their “present situation”. So of course Americans should “blame their present situation on the Jews”. That is a historical fact.

“Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING”

So Dr. MacDonald is intelligent, worked for a decade, found substantiating evidence that supports his case, yet proved nothing?

OK. Now I don’t agree anymore. This was just silly. What is more important, O’Meara, to change the world for the better, or to analyze it in as many fancy ways as possible?

“Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.”

I kind of agree with Michael on this one, but I would have like if he had pushed his comments a bit further, this proposition is so provoking.

I must be honest, and I rant a lot about jews, but this is very personal and comes from personal experiences with influential and powerful jews. So maybe I can simply state I hate them as much as they hate the Nazi’s. Now, hate in itself is not the most intelligent process (but I say while being absolutly opposed to hate laws); and this is why that while we can recognize in Jewish leadership our greatest challenge, it certainly does not mean that we must define ourselves by opposition.

When Mkicheal explains that Prof MacDonald could, through the filter of the CoC make the same kind of argument about many nevents and subgroups as he did about Jewry in damaging Western Culture, again he is right.

The way I understand it is, premordialy, the problem of ethnocentrism is a structural problem of social choices that affects our economic landscape and our political landscape.

Now, nationalism also develops ethnocentric reflexes. The difference between a system of multiculturalism is that it creates sub-groupings that each have their ethnocentric mechanism that are not related with the other geographic spaces that make a community.

When we choose to be nationalist, we set clear geographic frontiers; within those frontiers we establish a system of moral that reaches the same space, we create economic and legal structures and institutions that also find their meaning within and to the limits of these frontiers. Therefore there is a synchronisation between the social-economic-political reality that obey to the same fundamental rules, ethics and moral code.

Our current system, were the jews are kings, is one of which the fundamental basis is dislocation and assynchronus dynamics of those three factors. The spaces of moral standards and ethics are different than the economic one and of the political one.

Effectively, in this sense, the calvinist choise of a pure form of capitalism is indeed a self destructive path of the concept of nation.

Therefore, while personnaly ranting about jews may be motivating and appeasing sometimes, it cannot be a foundation of White nationalist vision.

What I believe is the true fight for White Nationalism is the fight against any ethnocentrism that is not Nationalist.

Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.

Sure you could . . .

I’m sorry, but this is just silly. If you’ll forgive a pop-culture reference, it reminds me of a scene in The Simpsons where the young lazy boy, Bart, after watching an acrobat perform a phenomenal bit of physical dexterity and artistry, mumbles, “I could do that, but I don’t want to.” (Meaning: there’s no way he could perform such a feat, but he tries to dismiss the accomplishment with a cheap, sour-grapes response.)

Dr. MacDonald’s work “proves nothing”? Then disprove it. Otherwise, you’re just offering an empty dismissal-by-assertion, and frankly, that is the sort of tactic that thinly disguised pro-Jew trolls employ on alt-right sites to attempt to de-legitimize solid and valid criticism.

And besides, think of what you’ve listed:

corporate capitalism…the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors.

I don’t know what “other factors” you might mean, but the ones that you name, “corporate capitalism…the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism” are all heavily informed and arguably dominated by Jewish values. So far from disproving Dr. MacDonald’s work, an argument for the potency of any of these entities would simply confirm it, by illustrating the power-by-proxy that the tribe has very consciously wielded.

I have addressed this issue in several discussions now, on Insurgent and on VOR, that the intellectual-moral quest we’ve carried as Westerners has left us vulnerable to Jewish exploitation – it is not an either/or between suicide and murder: viz, our wish for the innocence of Christianity, objectivism, science (expressed as scientism), universalism and individualism has rendered us naive to the relative and subjective motives of those who classify and cooperate as groups – Jews, in particular.

I agree that Richard Faussette and Bowery’s notion of virulent Jewish elites allows us to distinguish the more innocent when addressing the JQ, by taking the angle that there are relatively benign Jews, those more situated and accountable; the persecution of whom, in blaming all Jews, only perpetuates justification of the cycle of increased Jewish virulence among their elites, who escape with the money, to renew the exploitation and parasitism of a new host country. This distinguishing of the relatively benign allows us to eschew the charge of anti-Semitism, where that charge is a problem – i.e., we would be blaming “only the guilty” Jews. I would hasten to emphasize a caveat that Bowery touches on only in passing, one my experience has shown, namely, that that virulence lays dormant and ready to break out even among the more “benign” Jews. Hence, discrimination against them as a whole is to be advised for a long quarantine period, probably of several generations.

Nevertheless, Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point, that self destruction, is inherent within the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – viz., objectivism, scientism, Christianity, liberalism, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are really just naive by definition in not calling for accountability to the relative and subjective assertions of our interests as Whites; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians,); we would thus be taken advantage of, it would lead to our destruction, Jews or not.

However, in making this point, he does oversimplify some the over simplification of the one cause proponents – even Linder, the most prominent exponent of the Jew cause, is not quite that simplistic. However, that is to nit pick O’Meara’s article to an extent. It is a good point that our vulnerability to non-Whites would exist with the western values we’ve practiced for centuries now. The Jews merely exploit and pervert these values against us. While striving after White homeland(s) note the plurality), we need to re-adopt classification of Whites (see my discussions on Insurgent and VOR ) and assert its relative and subjective interests in revolutionary contrast to our centuries long customs of pseudo objectivism, universalism, Christianity, scientism, open markets (the non-accountability, the non-situated, non-ecology of these outlooks), whatever would have us treating non-Whites as being the same as us and having interests which we value equally if not more to our own because we are supposedly innocent and objectively motivated – as opposed to relative and accountable to the White class/group.

O’Meara’s statements read like an ADL press release. He is too busy focusing on how anti-semites are ‘crude, ignorant, and disgraceful’ instead of addressing whether they are right or wrong.

In practice, the “anti-semites” are the best business partners the Jews could have. they tell tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – Pierce – or bitch and moan like subpotent failures – a list too long to mention.

For, say, the last fifty years, the “anti-semites” have accomplished exactly nothing – I repeeat, NOTHING – for us, and have been used as marketing tools by the Jews. Let me assure you, if the obese, inept, NSM paraded in front of a synagogue, in a matter of hours the symbols seen by the American people would be of decent, hard-working, clean, well-educated, effective Jewish families being criticized by obese incompetents, and “just why are you doing this?” “Well, we hate what the Jews are doing to us.” “Like what?” “Well, they are getting degrees in biochemistry and going to medical school or becoming research scientists, and those are jobs we should have. Heil Hitler! Let’s hear it, boys!”

“Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.”

O’Meara hits a strong point here, too strong for too many of us. Let’s assume all you say about the Jews is true, and a magical ray will automatically move all of them to, say, Madagascar. What would you do then, and why aren’t you doing that now? YOU chose ineffectiveness, and YOU are ineffective. The Jews simply fill the vacuum left by Charlie Browns who keep trying to kick Lucy’s football.

Why is it that “anti-semites” are always willing to accommodate multiple interpretations, but anti-anti-semites always want to purge the ranks?

Let’s replace the term “anti-semites” with the more accurate term, “bitter damn failures.”

Try it now.

“Why is it that “bitter damn failures” are always willing to accommodate multiple interpretations, but “anti-bitter damn failures” always want to purge the ranks?”

Because, in part, half a century of blaming the Jews for our shortcomings had gained us nothing.

Here’s where Greg Johnson gets it right. Yes, we had weaknesses, and yes, the Jews took full advantage of them. What did we choose to do about it?

We blamed the Jews, and then we STOPPED, as if that was some magical incantation that would suddenly make it all go away. By focusing on what they are doing to us, and what we are letting them continue to do to us, we are abandoning our responsibility to our Posterity, to the Race.

My God! If the time and energy we had spent blaming the Jews had been sent in doing something for our Families, our Posterity, our Race, we’d be discussing this with the professors at our Mars Colony, and the funding thermometer wouldn’t be stuck at $11.635!

William Pierce’s ADV are still among the best things around to inform people about our problems. He was a far greater intellectual than any of the writers in the European New Right or any other “anti-Semitism is crude”-movement. So is Rockwell (who was an even greater intellectual).

You don’t need to be a gelding to be a great intellectual – in fact, you can’t.

Although I regard Mr. O’Meara as a brilliant writer, I strongly disagree with this article. We can never under-estimate the treachery of the Jew. I agree that the WN movement cannot maintain momentum through ONLY a negative focus on Jewish power, but it is .only through depriving Jews of THEIR power over us that we can become free to take back OUR power and create an ARYAN World Order that will be positive for ALL humanity.

This essay should be required reading for anyone who regards themselves as being a part of the “true Right.” The only minor quibble I have is with O’Meara’s assertion that an armed conflict in defense of White nationalism is inevitable. I would have to say that there is absolutely no sign or trend that points to a strategically significant body of armed Rightists arising at any point in the foreseeable future. The fact that a few Rightists might have a Mini-14 and a few boxes of ammunition in their closets is not the making of an organized struggle. As the European New Rightists correctly said, even if they have failed to realize it, the cultural struggle is the main issue. If that is won, an internal armed conflict might not even be necessary.

I certainly hope you’re right! Although Western Europe has moved even further to the Left than the U.S. ever has, and they’ve already been successfully disarmed in every country. So in some ways I would say America has the advantage, if only it could be put to proper use. Although on either continent, I think armed conflict without the proper cultural and material preparations would be a mistake.

I believe Dr. O’Meara commits a correlation error in identifying America as uniquely problematic because its infection was the first and the worst. Naturally, the mercantile elites would have more luck on an island in the sea far out of reach of the priests and nobles who would thwart their schemes or offer ideological alternatives. America is as accountable for this flood as midgets (being the first to drown) are accountable for literal floods.

I fully acknowledge (and it’s evident in numerous pieces I’ve written) that the sources of the white man’s present predicament are deeply rooted in our European past — particularly in the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. In many ways, America is simply a bad European idea.

But the difference between America and Europe is that in our homeland there were always powerful counter-tendencies resisting liberalism’s onslaught. And that it was only after bombing Germany and a good part of the Continent back to the Stone Age, hunting down and murdering its anti-liberal resisters, and completely replacing and Americanizing Western and Central European elites that the ‘infection’ invaded the homeland’s spirit.

This is not a correlation error; it’s a historical reality. Big difference.

First off, I wish to agree that the integrally reactive and monomaniacal spirit of judenhass does little if anything to help us.

I’ve read as much of your published and posted material as I could find, including your excellent Toward the White Republic. I appreciate that your position is more nuanced than I implied, and I believe I’m very near the same page as you in my take on our metapolitical predicament.

Where I diverge is in my being less impressed with Europe’s “powerful counter-tendencies” and more inclined to defined America as a true nation rather than as a propositional “notion nation” of anti-traditional ideals. America has; after all, featured powerful voices like those of Brigham Young, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and others who promoted the right ideals and fought the right enemies—they just did it wrong. It’s not as if the Catholic Church or the decadent vestiges of European nobility were the backbone of the NS phenomenon. If anything, they were inanimate objects at best and obstacles at worst.

After all, it doesn’t get much more Aryan-bred and old school than Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg.

I propose that Germany became the heart of resistance because Hitler was the first Restorationary to effectively frame his vanguard as a solution to a problem perceived by the German industrialists. In doing so, he seized upon a historical opportunity unique to his time and location to mobilize Germany’s money power in the service of Tradition rather than Modernity. Our failure lies both in lacking any kind of organization and in lacking an appreciation that power at this stage in our civilization no longer lies in force or influence but in exchange.

Naturally, martial and managerial challenges are to be effectively met, but the primary battlefront in this era is mercantile. To the extent the NS succeeded, it was due to its selling itself to the industrialists as the solution to the Soviet threat. The NS was finally defeated on the battlefield, but only because its enemies mobilized a larger and more wealthy aggregation of industrialists in England and America.

In summation, I believe White America has just as much potential as any other European nation to be the nation which rises up and solves the problem. The ideological foundations of the Restoration remain myopic and muddled—on both sides of the Atlantic. Being an optimist, I believe we’re one charismatic leader or innovative School away from arriving at a workable model. But to make that model work requires effective tactics. Effective tactics in the contemporary context necessarily interface with the true nature of power in the modern age.

To actually move toward a White republic, we would do well to abandon our romantic attachments to the ideas, institutions, and identities which were once vehicles for the Restorationary cause. The typical German or Irishman isn’t secretly nurturing a Traditional spirit which Americans lack. If anything, they’re less traditional in many critical ways than American folk. The Golden Thread of Tradition crosses the Atlantic, and all a Restoration needs is one man with the will and vision to grasp for it and perform the hard and smart work necessary to actualize its potential.

If America Is ruled by a coalition of jews and WASP plutocrat, why did the Wasps let the jews join the club in the first place? Why did they never through them off when they were strong enough(Which was as late as the early cold war decades) Why did they fall for the “culture of critique”?
At no point did the White Elite have their throats cut en masse. They gave up power to the jews Voluntarily.
Explain this specific mystery of race treason and you unlock the entire key to our decline. O’Meara or any one else fancy taking a short at explaining their motivations for this bizarre and unprecedented action?

If America Is ruled by a coalition of jews and WASP plutocrat, why did the Wasps let the jews join the club in the first place?

They assumed that Jews would assimilate like other European groups. They did not believe that the Jews would become a state-within-a-state and launch a revolution against them. If you had told an Anglo-Saxon in 1900 that in less than a century his people would be a despised race within his own country, displaced from major cities, and politically neutralized, he would have laughed at you.

If anything, they saw Jews as a non-threatening nuisance. After all, most Americans had only a biblical perception of Jewry. The bible presented an image of the Jew as a downtrodden people oppressed by Pharaohs and goliaths. Jews were merely lost sheep in need of conversion.

“Why did they never through them off when they were strong enough(Which was as late as the early cold war decades)”

“At no point did the White Elite have their throats cut en masse. They gave up power to the jews Voluntarily. Explain this specific mystery of race treason and you unlock the entire key to our decline.”

The Jews wielded a media monopoly and political supremacy before anyone realized what happened.

They achieved predominance in the United States during the 1930s. The Great Depression caused enough havoc to allow the Jews to latch onto the Democratic Party and guide useful idiots like Roosevelt into power. By the end of WW2 the American government had grown massively and it was from this state apparatus that the Jews consolidated their grip. By the time of the Cold War it was simply a matter of the Jews cleaning out the remaining points of resistance within America. It was during this period that you had people like Revilo P. Oliver, John Beaty, and George Lincoln Rockwell sucked into the trap of “anti-Communism.” The anti-Communist movement was the same as the kosher-conservative movement today – it addressed all the problems but the cause of the problems.

Francis, here is a short answer to your question. WASPs preferred Jews as allies in their war against; Europe, Catholicism, White (especially Catholic) ethnics. Jews were seen as numerically smaller and therefore safer associates. At a certain point WASPs realized they couldn’t lord it over everybody (i.e. Jews, Catholics and others) alone. They needed an ally that would simultaneously allow them to maintain their dominance over those outside their alliance as well as those newly recruited within it (Jews). Raw numbers and Bibliolatry favored the choice of Jews.

It seems to me that much of this debate revolves around the idea of ethnic identity and how it is to be formulated. The two main approaches I can see are:

1. we self-identify according to who our enemy is. This approach has the advantage of not losing sight of the source, or sources of threat to our existence, but, the disadvantage is that with the disappearance of the enemy, we too disappear. No small disadvantage!

2. self-identity has, ultimately nothing to do with who our enemy is. It is more of a ‘metaphysical’ issue. Here the advantage is that our identity is not mediated by any foreign element – it is true and substantial, but, on the downside, we risk opening the doors to the enemy.

I personally lean to the second approach, but this is also a source of my despair since we find, within white identity, “everything and the opposite of everything”. What exactly do we share? Religion? You gotta be joking! Forget about New Age, Wotanism, occultism etc. and the rest of the smorgasbord out there, and just look at the various approaches to Christianity as an example. Many of us, myself as Russian Orthodox included, are Christians – but what kind of Chrsitians? There are Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants (perhaps there are others, I’m not that clued up on the disintegration that followed the Protestant revolution). Then there are those among us who see Christianity as the source of all evil, i.e. basically a Jewish plot (eg. Savitri Devi on Saul of Tarsus). Culture? This is such a vague term that I fail to see just what, culturally, we share, unless, of course we share the same ‘enemy’, which means we are back to identity approach one, which is to say, defining ourselves through our enemy. Race? Again, just what, once the mediating factor of the common enemy and the white skin is removed, are the concrete, identifiable characteristics of our race?

In conclusion, I would argue that:
Unless we are totally brain dead, we cannot but agree that our principle common enemy is the Jew, but I would also argue that we have an even greater problem which is, defining just who we are. Either we find some kind of common identity across nations (i.e. over and above Irish, Russian, Afrikaner etc. local identities), which I find difficult to imagine, or we talk about local identities, but them what sense does a common identity make?

My own position is that only religion, and only one religion, can do that, but then, I would say that, wouldn’t I? Perhaps we might be intelligent enough to take a lesson or two from our enemy.

The race-replacement policy is made possible by the joined efforts of White loony leftists and of anti-White Jewish activists. Such a policy wouldn’t be possible without the cooperation of both groups. That it wouldn’t be possible without the Jews means that they are 100% responsible for the disaster. At the same time, the loony leftists are 100% responsible too, as it wouldn’t be possible without them either. And the mental weakness of normal White people is also to blame. So, it is difficult to calculate the responsibilities.

But we don’t care who is most to blame. What matters is who can be neutralized and what problem can be fixed with the least difficulty. It may not be easy to fix the problem of Jewish massive over-representation in the media, politics and other institutions, but it will still be much easier than fixing whatever is wrong with White people’s minds. So, I think we should focus our efforts on the Jewish anti-White activists who dominate the media. What is wrong with that? Nothing can justify their overrepresentation. If we have our way, they will have to learn another job. I wouldn’t shed too many tears over that.

White Nationalism MUST have as its key component an anti-Jewish thrust

White Nationalism to my way of thinking MUST have as its key component an assertive identity of WHITE. That identity does not include Jews. In this world that makes us anti-semites which tells us all we need to know about what anti-semitism really is.

To be an anti-semite is simply to be pro-me, pro-us, pro-White. It has nothing to do with being oppositional to Jews and everything to do with being assertive of our own identity which is mutually exclusive of Jews.

O’Meara’s post is a necessary corrective to WNist tendencies in some quarters to ascribe all our problems to the Jews. They are not, demonstrably so. But, as Johnson says, “no form of White Nationalism that ignores the Jewish question offers us a complete account of our race’s predicament or a realistic plan of action to regain control of our destiny. ”

Our destiny is tied to our identity and our identity does not include Jews.

While there is truth to what you say here, that polemics against the Jews would be countered with abundant facts of their objective success and decency:

“Let me assure you, if the obese, inept, NSM paraded in front of a synagogue, in a matter of hours the symbols seen by the American people would be of decent, hard-working, clean, well-educated, effective Jewish families being criticized by obese incompetents, and “just why are you doing this?” “Well, we hate what the Jews are doing to us.” “Like what?” “Well, they are getting degrees in biochemistry and going to medical school or becoming research scientists, and those are jobs we should have. Heil Hitler! Let’s hear it, boys!”

This is to ignore that the Jews are acting as a group which provides fostering grounds for these “individual” and “objective” endeavors – biochemistry, medical school, research science are all “how to” questions, more in order once the “who” question (in their case, ‘we’ Jews, Jewish families) is answered and “why” questions are answered – why, because it furthers their relative/subjective well being. We have known Jewish professionals more competent than others and we have also known some of those professionals to be whiny, grown babies at the same time – because they are more used to being supported as a part of an extended family (and by those fighting on their behalf).

What I’m saying is, that Jewish objective success is part of their group support while you seem to propose that we should do the opposite, that our group support should stem from “objective”, individualistic competition amongst ourselves and of mutual brutality. As if humaneness and support amongst ourselves will not yield objective success stories. It will. And let the infirm be weeded out where reasonable cooperation does not suffice – they will.

We should not allow ourselves to continue to be bludgeoned by a disingenuous Nietzschean individualism, a perspective of puerile girls, admiring only the hyper masculine qualities, to the logical extreme of admiring negroes; we need to be more honest and cooperative as Whites. If one is not competent to a particular objective task, understood – but he can make important contributions, likely more important contributions to the White way of life in his sublimation, nevertheless. It will be a good thing in the end when he finds out that he could not archive some of these things he admired as a young man and turned attention to a broader perspective. You show a disdain for sublimation – but that is an important distinguishing characteristic of us, as Whites- it is a part of what makes us creative and brilliant in the way of our life.

Nevertheless, you do make some good points:

That a man should attend to his work endeavors first, not to women – though I would add that this mistake is liable when men are trying to establish an answer to the “who” and “why’ questions, understandably so, when they have been so subverted in the current, disordered context – hence, “how to” questions of work, “how to” make the Mulatto Supremacist, Jewish supremacist system function more efficiently are not appealing to a sensible White man.

Of course I think it is good that you are critical of the Nazi platform, especially in our present context. The Germans of that day were instigated to over compensation with explanation, but did extend beyond German nationalism and a focused dealing with the Jews (expulsion for the “benign” and more harsh penalties for the “virulent” because they have proven to be criminally harmful?); we certainly need better control, coordination and cooperation among White nations – while not doing away with managed distinctions, boundaries, we need a coordination of all native European nations and peoples. Nazism shies many away from being articulate of Jewish culpability, not only because of Jewish propaganda, but also because not all of us are German. While we do not want to harm Germans, obviously we do not want to be harmed by them either; thus, in not being able to identify with those as Nazis who do not care for us, do not include us in their group, Jews are provided divide and conquer propaganda indeed.

However, I disagree with your endorsement of Christianity – it has had us obsequiously taking too many slaps and then reacting in easily manipulated biological convulsion. It is a Jewish trick that has had us depicting other Europeans as Babylonians – identifying us with Jews and other Europeans as the enemy. The text is the text, obsequious and self destructive, even if some are able to render creative interpretations.

14 Words can and should form the core of our religion: it is ideal, transcendent, forward looking, encompassing, practical and palpable.

Yes, there are well educated, competent, hard working and decent Jews – complicating the argument against them enough so that we should make use of the above mentioned ‘benign’ vs. ‘virulent’ Jew distinction at a minimum – but recognize that even the benign ones are a different people, functioning as part of a distinct group, probably having dormant, destructive properties to us, who cannot be expected care as much for Europeans as we do. Thus, we should discriminate against them indefinitely. Even if we have fewer competent doctors, for example, absent the Jews, we ought to take our chances to develop more of our own in that and whatever profession we need. They have achieved their successes while all, benign and virulent among them, are functioning as a group more supporting of one another than Whites (native Europeans) have.

It is natural for success stories to want to take more credit for their individual success than they deserve and to de-emphasize their indebtedness to their group. It is a false either/or to say that we deny our White success stories – good White doctors, scientists, etc. by acknowledging the supportive, evolutionary, processual grounds of the White group.

francis alexander:

You ask:

“At no point did the White Elite have their throats cut en masse. They gave up power to the jews Voluntarily.

Explain this specific mystery of race treason and you unlock the entire key to our decline. O’Meara or any one else fancy taking a short at explaining their motivations for this bizarre and unprecedented action?”

I am confident that I have provided the basic answer to your question in my first post.

I read O”Meara’s piece with rather mixed emotions. There’s a big difference between a fixation on irrational, crackpot “anti-Semitism”, and being Jew wise. He is certainly aware of the deficient mindset, (historic & current) of most White Americans, that is pogoesque in its self-defeating effect. The conundrum of the, (essentially nihilistic), Anglo/White psyche is certainly multi-faceted, and as enigmatic as it gets.

Jewry is most assuredly compounding White psychological weaknesses, and with their control of the media, manipulating the hell out of us. But, why are those White foibles there to begin with, and what can be done to rectify them? That is the question that White Nationalism needs to address. I am currently reading Fraser’s new book, THE WASP QUESTION, to try ascertain what he has to say about this riddle. Identifying the problems and finding solutions are critical.

I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion (emotion moves faster then thought). In it, I attack the one thing that they seem to understand about the complex, careening world in which we live — and which seems headed for an inevitable breakdown or collapse.

But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say (beyond scolding our Streicher types) about the nature of our crusade and the spirit it fights. Also remember that for a decade of my youth I was a political soldier and I am the author of “The Psychopathology of Judaism” and “Evola’s Anti-Semitism.”

But you ask: Was tun?

We fight the System, of course. The Jews are a powerful instrument of the System (though no one, not even the Jews, actually controls it — to even think it is naive). So we must continue to expose and resist Jewish distortions and machinations.

But at the same time (and as a self-proclaimed Orthodox priest I assume you know), we are also waging a greater crusade– one on the scale of Maistre’s Providence or Heidegger’s Being — a Holy War (Rahowa?) if you like — one we have yet to win — first in ourselves and then against the lesser enemy.

But lucky us. We won’t actually have to fight the System to bring it down. It’s already falling apart all by itself.

What’s most important at this stage in history is to know — and to know with absolute certainty in every wing of our disparate ranks — what we need to fight for, once the time comes. And our time will come if we are worthy of it.

Of course, one can see the expected replies. I wonder if half of them a) actually read the article and b) understood it.

Generally any article that offers our side the chance to break out of the political ghetto (without selling out, being co-opted by the System…etc), will be opposed by those that are scared of victory, of going mainstream. Some on our side are attracted to the cause as they are not mainstream individuals (coming from a guy that had hair halfway down his back until a few months ago), as such will resist any expansion efforts. Perhaps a new hobby for the hobbyists would sort this problem out.

PS. Of course an integral part of White Nationalism is anti-Semitism! No one is saying otherwise.

@ I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion

At least not me. As I said, I was merely confused.

@ But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say (beyond scolding our Streicher types) about the nature of our crusade and the spirit it fights.

Parrott has obviously a valid point when he states (elsewhere) that it’s our spirit what is ill and needs a cure. But unlike Parrott I believe that what we are witnessing is the dismissal of Christianity, just as the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries of the Common Era witnessed the dismissal of the Pagan religion. Those who in this thread or elsewhere cling to the paradigm which is now dying remind me those who clang to paganism in Gore Vidal’s best novel, Julian. Yes: Heidegger made a point just before dying when he spoke about a (nebulous) god as the only way to save our civilization. But (to my mind) that god was not so nebulous: it was murdered in its cradle during and after WW2. Isn’t it fascinating to see how the Aryan Jung parted ways with the Jew Freud and originally became impressed with NS as the powerful archetype that would take hold of the new generations only to issue disclaimers after Germany was betrayed by the Anglo-Saxon world?

As to scolding our Streicher types I do find it very foolish how we look to potential allies or newcomers when those who see Jews under every stone blame 9/11 on Mossad. Conversely, as Linder claims shrewd people (like those who publish here) see 90% of what’s there. Paranoids (like Linder himself and our Streicher types) see 110%. Linder’s cynical point is that “the non-paranoids in a movement can use the paranoids to pick up that last little bit they don’t catch themselves.”

Yes: I could scold the paranoids for their conspiracy theories on Pearl Harbor, JFK, 9/11 or the “staged” Moon landing (it’s incredible how many people believe in conspiracy theories in WN-ism). But following Jungian terms I simply cannot force their psyche to get possessed by the archetype that has already possessed mine: the physical beauty of the best specimens of Caucasians. After beauty comes everything else: art, music, family values, will to power and conquest… Eros truly is the dialectic force.

@ What’s most important at this stage in history is to know — and to know with absolute certainty in every wing of our disparate ranks — what we need to fight for, once the time comes. And our time will come if we are worthy of it.

I fight for the perpetuation of the gene pool that I consider closest to the Divine. I want it perpetuated for billions of years, as in the city of Lys in Arthur C. Clarke’s The City and the Stars.

But to reach to that stage of utopia we need first to solve the JP. It’s impossible to coexist with a tribe that has a parallel dream of its own, and that believes that their god told Abraham: “‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them’. And god said unto him: ‘So shall thy seed be’. And he believed in the lord.”

Same planet for two different ethnic dreams, Jerusalem and my Lys? No wonder why the Talmud advises: “The best of the Goyim must be destroyed.”

The future existence of the white people depends on the realization that a tough tribe vehemently wants to prevent our most cherished dreams become true.

To my critics: Misread my piece and make me into a philo-Semite if you like — that way you won’t have to abandon your virtualist understanding of things (which, I realize, is the normal, comfortable de-Aryanized approach favored in America’s Low Culture — the real source of our predicament).

To Greg: You know I’m not a New Rightist (I call myself a ‘revolutionary nationalist’), but my identitarianism is closer to the NR than your appeasing anti-Semitism, which tries to couple that which cannot be coupled. If you don’t get this, your NANR is likely to end up in the same historical garbage can as Rockwell’s ANP and all the other pseudo-NS follies of the last half century.

Appeasing? The only thing I appease is my own sense of what is true and right. You have gone off the rails here. I don’t see any alternative to speaking the truth about the Jewish problem. Again, I think you have a chip on your shoulder and are trying to engineer a break over what still appears to be next to nothing.

I would like to see a good argument for why you think my particular approach to things is futile. If you are right, I certainly need to know.

Yes, Rockwell was murdered – does that prove that he was a fool? Your comment has nothing to do with my question.

The point of my question to O’Meara is that you have to be a greater man than Rockwell to say something disrespectful like that about him, and not look like a fool. In this case, O’Meara makes a fool of himself.

I take sniffing out and purging “anti-semites” to demonstrate a concern for jewish interests first and foremost, and that this is the purview of jewish chauvinists and their useful idiots, not White nationalists.

O’Meara invokes a classic argument against “anti-semitism”: Not EVERYTHING is controlled ABSOLUTELY by the jews – therefore to focus on the jews ALONE is crazy/stupid/evil. His use of superlatives is the tipoff that he is setting up and flailing at a strawman. The claim in his comment that “a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots” is “totally out of control” and “a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism” mirrors the hyperbolic sentiments he expressed in the essay itself:

“As such, this dogma knows the answer to every question before it is even posed – for every failing and misfortune we suffer is automatically assumed to be the fault of the Omnipotent Jew. No need, then, for laborious studies in history, culture, and political-social analysis – just “name the Jew” and everything is explainable.”

Turned around and stripped of superlatives, O’Meara’s thesis is that the failing and misfortune White nationalism suffers is the fault of “the anti-semites”, who he regards as relatively closer to omnipotence than the jews. No need, then, to identify any particular person or any particular position for analysis – just blame “the anti-semites” so we can get on with our White business.

Beyond hypocrisy and projection O’Meara makes another error. He presumes that he or the White masses decide how much “anti-semitism” is too much. He fails to recognize that the jewish hunt for “the anti-semites” never ends, that having an Other to blame for their misfortunes is an integral part of jewish identity, a definitive quality of their own existence.

O’Meara blames the blamers for blaming too much, his whole point being that jews deserve less and Whites deserve more, and that the jew-blamers deserve it most of all. This is the same old tired sophistry – excusing jews, sticking it to Whites – dressed up as if it’s something new.

“To my critics: Misread my piece and make me into a philo-Semite if you like — that way you won’t have to abandon your virtualist understanding of things (which, I realize, is the normal, comfortable de-Aryanized approach favored in America’s Low Culture — the real source of our predicament).”

To Dr. O’Meara: At least I am not one of your critics, but one of your admirers. It was precisely your short essays what moved me away from anti-Semitic reductionism to understand Western malaise.

To the commenters of this thread: If I understand O’Meara correctly (and please correct me if I don’t), what he’s saying we can illustrate by means of a simplest Venn Diagram.

Imagine a small circle inside a much larger circle. The larger circle is America’s Low Culture, the “greatest enemy of the white race”. Like a hemi-permeable membrane with its defenses down, the big circle now circumscribes a smaller one, the opportunist tribe.

To understand the cell’s pathology let’s now imagine that the big circle is itself inside a larger one: Western corporate capitalism.

I’ll title my next blog entry “Richard Wagner’s wisdom”, and will republish again an article that originally appeared in The Occidental Observer one year ago.

Again, if I understand O’Meara correctly, he is only saying that capitalism is the Ring of Greed and Power that corrupted the West, the ultimate cause of the (comparatively smaller) Jewish Problem. “Whoever fails to see that the greatest danger to the white people is the Western plutocracy—led often by Jews hastens to add O’Meara—fails to draw the key lesson of modern history.”

A commenter asked above: “If America Is ruled by a coalition of jews and WASP plutocrat, why did the Wasps let the jews join the club in the first place?”

My tentative answer is that the culprit is the One Ring, which corrupted the race of Men and in the original Wagnerian opera symbolizes gold. Capitalist plutocracy is such a factor that sometimes I am tempted to imagine a socio-political-psychological reductionism when considering the other factors, including the JP.

Is the One Ring is the main enemy of the white race? Although O’Meara accepts the JP as a serious problem, he believes that the greater enemy is the technocratic elite of both America and Europe. The contents of page 91 of Toward the White Republic provide a very vivid illustration of how the Ring destroyed far more our traditional culture than the communist regimes that the people of the Eastern bloc endured:

When Thomas Molnar, who played an important role in the US conservative movement of the 1960s and ’70s, returned to his native Hungary after the collapse of the Soviet empire, he found, to his astonishment, that traditional culture and education, which had virtually disappeared in the West, were still very much alive in the former Soviet bloc.

Can the One Ring of greed and power be the ultimate culprit for the cultural and eventual demographic disappearance of the West and the white people—unless we destroy the Ring, presently wielded by the Jew, thru Covingtonist-like revolutions?

I cannot answer this question. But I hope that the lyric essay I’ll republish tomorrow may throw some light in the subject.

So don’t get too harsh on O’Meara, especially when we know that the ADL terminated his career for teaching historical revisionism, and that he now has to work in blue-collar jobs to pay his bills. My educated guess is that he’s just trying to say that we badly need a wider meta-perspective than our provincial views (the smallest of the three circles in our concentric “Venn” diagram). Because if we understand the largest circle (the ring), which circumscribes the other two, we may understand what O’Meara—and anti-Semite Wagner and Tolkien, a fan of the Franco regime—were trying to convey with their “One Ring” metaphors.

Like Odysseus, sensible WNists have to steer a path between the equally destructive Scylla and Charibys, that is, between instantly discrediting Jew obsessiveness and de facto philo-semitism. It is important to note that philo-semitism on the White right can be explicit like at Amren or implicit as with the self-censoring A3P and alt right. Implicit or explicit philo-semitism is just as damaging as Single Jewish Cause obsessiveness.

Michael O’Meara seems to relish keeping the America versus Europe circular firing squad intact. Anerica this, America that, and so on. It’s tiresome how he conflates “America” with the US government and US media.

You say we need white nationalism to “re-assert America’s European destiny” and halt “the anti-white forces controlling the political and social systems of the United States. You mention the USA twice there.

Are you saying that white nationalism is an American reaction to American problems? Could there be such a system, in England, France or Ireland? Should there be? Why or why not?

No, there can be no such situation in England, France, or Ireland because the English, French, and Irish, no matter how narcotized they may be today, remain nations (greatly deculturated, Americanized, de-Europeanized, no longer fully themselves, asleep most of the time) — aber trotz alledem, nations still. Their national movements, along with their common European project, seek, as such, to restore and reassert the rights of their nation.

European-Americans, by contrast, are only a race — the Europid race of North America – and lack the history, culture, and informing spirit of a nation in the European sense. The sole thing that makes them distinct (and offers them an identity) is the genetic and cultural heritage that came from Europe. (Origin is destiny). Thus, if they do not consciously affirm themselves as New World Europeans against the Americanist system programming their extinction, they will inevitably return, as they are in fact already doing, to the barbarians and fellaheen who preceded them – they’ll become the united colors of Benetton – the end point of the American Dream.

The enemy our revolutionary nationalists fight is the Americanism seeking Europe’s extinction in North America. This is a different fight than the one our European cousins are beginning to wage.

We seem to be having a class conflict here, specifically between Town and Gown. The rank and file, ordinary men – also known as “guys” need simple anwers because they either can’t understand anything else or they don’t care to. So they need “educated cadres” to guide them and inform any of them who are ready for deeper answers. This is in line with all Traditional Cultures which all believe implicitly that men differ radically – not just in term of psychological type, but even in terms of level of conscious functioning and experience.

Now I doubt there are any actual Townies here – the conflict is about how to mediate the conflict between Town and Gown. One is reminded of Ian Jobling’s departure from Amren – disgusted with the crudity of American Racists. The Gown must remember that the Town has rights and needs as well. To enter this conflict is to leave the Ivy Tower. If you can’t then your usefulness is radically limited. If one is incapable of respecting them, then one certainly can’t lead them. And in fact, one has begun to duplicate the unspeakable contempt that the Western Gentile Elites have for their own people.

One factor to remember is that some of the “guys” are much smarter than they seem. It is taboo in American Working Class Culture to seem smart or bookish. Some of them don’t read at all and still are very sharp. They are the natural leaders of their people and could be the link to the higher levels of the Movement – if appropriately humble Leaders were able to reach down to them.

Although your remarks strike me as reasonable in and of themselves, I do not think they really apply to what is going on here. I am frankly baffled, though, about what really is happening. Sure, there are “crude” and “vulgar” anti-Semites out there. You should see the kinds of comments I used to have to delete in the first six months of this website, before their authors got the message and roosted elsewhere. And sure, it is important to get clear about one’s priorities (being pro-ourselves rather than being merely anti-them) and to avoid simplistic and reductionist thinking (the “single Jewish cause”). But O’Meara is not just setting out those points. His article, and particularly his follow-up comments, are needlessly provocative, for reasons known only to him. But I saw that only AFTER I posted the article. I also think some commentators are right to discern some sort of “posturing” going on. To which audience, and to what end, I have no clue. I would certainly like a good argument for why he thinks my own approach is destined for failure.

I cannot speak for Dr O’Meara. But I can confess that two months ago, when I had to strenuously work a couple of days among swarming brown faces in a Third World country, I came back home mountainously furious. Work certainly is the curse of the thinking classes. What intellectuals like O’Meara need are, as you said, “mysterious benefactors”.

I suggest that he may be experiencing an intense disgust at ordinary blue collar American White Nationalist – like the Englishman Ian Jobling. Perhaps after years of living in Europe, he has a hard time dealing with Americans. Europe has always been less crude, or so I hear. Living here is a perpetual crucifixation of consciousness. I sympathize since I have a hard time also. But I’m not in a position to influence the Movement. It’s a serious issue because you can’t lead – even intellectualy much less politically – if you are stuck in this reaction. Leaders need what’s called “the common touch”. If one lacks it, then one can be an advisor but must never be “up front”.

Jaego: Just the opposite. My disgust — and I’ve had it all my life — is with the middle class, especially with philistine middle-class intellectuals who seem as prominent in so-called WN ranks as they are in the Academy. Being Catholic and Irish in America has, for me, also been part of being working class in America. But in addition to my class loyalties, my experiences have given me a far higher opinion of trade union militants and working class Bolsheviks than I’ll probably ever have of American conservative or racialist intellectuals. I also know if any fighting is ever to be done, I can count on one rather than the other.

I think it’s significant that in the years I posted at VNN, I was less offended by the numbskull things said by obviously badly educated types there (who at least had the virtue of saying them with some wit), than I am by the numskull things said so often by so many middle class intellectuals associated with a site ostensively aimed at the higher IQ types.

Forget about the workers; they’ll be with us when the time comes. Now’s the time to start worrying about the sorry lot of intellectuals who represent us.

***

Greg: It doesn’t do you any credit to psychologize my principled opposition to one of the key ideological issues facing American nationalists. You might do better to ask yourself why you refuse to look at the ideology/dogma of anti-Semitism from the New Right perspective you profess.

But if there is actually a psychological motive behind my ‘provocative’ attack, as you describe it, it’s comes from the Leninist understanding of ‘Better fewer, but better’.

I suspected that this was the problem. O’Meara seems to be criticizing the tenor of a community so tiny, so far outside any impact on public discourse, as to be all but nonexistent.

I think at the very least, when discussing a “movement” of any sort, we need to expand our perspective wide enough at least to start with paleoconservatism/radical traditionalism and encompass every position to the right of that. And amid such a grouping, VNN (the very existence of which I only learned about through occasional references by commentators on other sites) is utterly minuscule. The rest of the paleo/alt-right “movement” hardly discusses Jewish matters at all, and that is the real problem, the real ignorance, the real lacuna.

comes from the Leninist understanding of ‘Better fewer, but better’.

Easy for Lenin to say when he’s talking about millions in the first place. The Bolsheviks could kill off millions and still have millions more at hand.

“Our” side is so tiny and schismatic that to follow the “better fewer” proposition, we’d all each been in our own little enclave of one, because we every one of us would think we’re “better.” Take out the anti-Semites here, and the so-called “misogynists” there, and pretty soon you’re left with no one, and you’ve probably expelled the most energetic members of your group. I hate to use the obvious cliché from Nietzsche, but really, this sounds like a case of “Beware lest in casting out your devil, you cast out the best part of yourself.”

Really, the point of contention here seems so microscopically particular that it sounds like a dispute between one Protestant sect and another Protestant sect over a tiny quibble about scripture. It’s a moment of great wisdom for, say, Lutherans when they realize that their enemies are cultural Marxists, not Anglicans. Same in this case.

“Now some might wonder why I occasionally joust with trolls on other sites. Answer: Everyone needs a hobby.” Baiting trolls is a reliable way of getting replies to one’s comments. I sometimes find that the comments that require the most mental effort seem to generate the least interest or the greatest incomprehension. That’s part of the reason why I’ve little interest in writing articles. Why write when you can expect to be ignored or misunderstood? How does one write for an audience if one can’t read that audience? I suppose that writers should be stoical about such matters.

As a general rule, it is best to write articles, because these are less context dependent and thus have more of a chance to “travel” around the web, whereas blog posts and comments are more context dependent and thus less likely to have legs. I agree that having immediate feedback from an audience can be stimulating. But ultimately I think one’s writing has more impact if one aims at writing essays.

I don’t actually see why some people are so upset over this essay. O’Meara has said, both in the essay and in his comments, that he doesn’t deny that awareness of Jewish/Zionist power is crucial in the Rightist struggle. His argument is rather that, even if we could expel all Jews from North America and Europe tomorrow and prove that the Holocaust was a fairy tale, would that rectify all of our problems? Even more pointedly, if the Jews had never come to the West in the first place, would we now be living in an Aryan utopia? I don’t see how anyone who has examined the historical, cultural, philosophical and spiritual foundations of our civilization could believe either of those contentions. And it seems to me that O’Meara isn’t suggesting anything beyond that. Is it such a hard pill to swallow?

They essay itself can be defended. But obviously from the tone of his subsequent comments, O’Meara just tossed it out there because he wants to bait trolls. Stirring that particular pot is not a productive use of our time.

My own interpretation of what O’Meara is saying is that our identity should not be held hostage to the Jews, and *some* WNists take a position that whatever the Jews are or are for they are against, and see a Jew under every rock.

Christianity becomes “xtianity” a Jewish religion, Western culture and history for 2,000 years becomes all a Jewish subterfuge, everything becomes tainted by the Jews and so we must throw everything out, the baby, the bathwater the lot.

The Irish did not define themselves by being the opposite to the British or English, they stood their ground and said we are what we are and will not be told what we should be. The guns of the IRA were focused on defending Ireland and the Irish – culture, history, religion and… people.

The Irish did not seek out those who were extreme “anti-British” in their cause and throw them out. They accommodated them and utilised them, but always with the one goal of achieving Irish independence. The independence to be Irish without the British telling them what that should be nor the Irish being whatever isn’t British.

We have a broad church and all can and should be accommodated from the fringe to the centre. Everyone has their role to play.

But I see O’Meara’s reaction to some American style WNism as a reaction against them wanting to throw the lot out and become the opposite of “our enemy”. Yet our enemies are many, not just the Jews. Americans, without the Jews, are a unique people and some of their ways are strange and confusing. It’s hard sometimes to distinguish the Jewified Yanks from the Yanks proper. Maybe that is what O’Meara is striking out at.

I’d like to believe that he is predicting failure of a Rightist position; because it is inhumane and organizationally ineffective – the Jews want to drive us there because they know that it is foolish and they know that Leftist Classification – viz. of Whites (Europeans) has both the moral high ground and the greater potential for powerful organization; White traitors also want to drive us to the right and its objectivist individualism because it serves their interests. After that I would hope that he would be recommending a move sorting out Jewish perversion of the Left (a perversion which is really just more liberalism, catastrophic, obsequious liberalism, when you look at it – concerned primarily for non-White classes), and sorting out all non-Whites from the Left. I have discussed this as a matter of Classification, not economic, but of race: all native Europeans, including Russians (who “WE” are is not so hard to classify – viz, we are people evolved in the context of Europe over 40,000 years). After sorting out the Jews and other non-Whites (pseudo, Jew created, “marginals” who are supposed to “enrich” us), we address the White traitors – first and foremost of course, the plutocrats who facilitate anti White policies; then our gaze marches through the institutions, so to speak, clearing the traitors out, from plutocrats, to political, judicial and other career sell outs, academic sell outs on down to incorrigible liberals and mudsharks. We organize while bringing the White destroying elite and their followers down. We clear them out of our nation – separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.

With this vision of the White Class (that I have proposed on VOR), we work out the proper balance of free enterprise, a reasonable understanding of individualism, industry that is socially and environmentally responsible; a sufficient moral order that has two way accountability from those on top of the class to those marginalized.

It should be possible to begin by declaring our skin and our DNA our nation; all who are loyal welcome members, innocent until proven guilty; and to proceed as a nation, declaring it so; coordinating it among various parts of the globe; working to bring one or more points, however small into being as physically marked territory for native Europeans*. Later on, after we’ve consolidated our strength and put it into different places where it cannot be an easy mark, we can work on re-establishing traditional White territories as White again.

* A hot head and impossible to deal with in many ways, Giles had a couple good ideas – one was a biological constitution and the other, I think, is that we should call ourselves Europeans; them Israelis, Africans and a few different kinds of Asians.

We know that when we say ‘European’ that we are not talking about Mulattoes and Jews with European Passports. European is more descriptive and accurate than White; shows more historical respect and depth; carries less of the baggage; doesn’t make some of the trivial distinctions while maintaining the important ones. It also shows respect for What O’Meara is talking about – viz. undoing whatever competitive hubris that may exist to and from Europeans and their diaspora.

Henceforth, read the White Class and the European Class as interchangeable; with the European Class being the ultimate name, the White a provisional one, where people find it more effective; understanding that it is synonymous. 14

* The term “European” doesn’t make some of the trivial distinctions (like lumping Southern Europeans with Blacks and Eastern Europeans with Asians), while maintaining the important ones – such as the traditional nations and regions of Europe, their folk. We want Swedes to be Swedes, Irish to be Irish and so on. I do not want to be misunderstood as one who favors amalgamating Europeans into one people; but do care that they function with a cooperative effort to preserve the wider class of Europeans as whole; in Europe and in diaspora.

I think that a key to part of what Michael O’Meara is saying in the above article can be found in his review of Guillaume Faye’s La nouvelle question juive. Following Carl Schmitt, O’Meara noted that “the designation of the enemy is at the heart of every grande politique,” but it is difficult to identify the principal enemy today. As O’Meara writes:

“In our postmodern age, when the jus publicum Europaeum has given way to globalism’s anti-European order, nationalists confront a situation where they are obliged to fight a multi-front, asymmetrical war: Against an external enemy, the non-white hordes replacing Europeans, and against an internal enemy, those liberal elites, Jewish and otherwise, who promote and make possible this replacement. Faye and the reformists focus on the external enemy, his critics, like Graf, on the internal enemy. And, as in every multi-front war, the question inevitably arises: Who is the principal enemy, the gate keepers or the gate crashers?

“For Faye, it’s the non-white immigrants, and every distraction from this realization is a step closer to the European’s impending Islamization. For Graf, it is the system responsible for the Third World invasion. ‘Effective struggle against immigration within the current framework,’ he writes, ‘is totally impossible. In order to stop the invasion the system has to be overthrown either by a popular insurrection or a coup d’état.’ This is a revolutionary answer that strikes at the root of the problem. Of course, such an anti-institutional answer is one that neither Faye nor the conservative majority in nationalist ranks is presently willing to entertain — if for no other reason than it slights the visible enemy in our midst and complicates white efforts to reform existing policies.

“How one sees the system, then, affects how one defines the principal enemy. And how one sees the Jews in relation to the system decides if this makes them the principal enemy or not. To the degree, therefore, that the esprit juif is the system’s spirit and favors specifically Jewish interests at the expense of white ones, the Jews are the real danger. But — and this is the qualification that muddies the waters — to the degree that it is the system itself, independent of the Jews, that is responsible for our predicament and thus the degree to which the Jews are only one of its instruments, then they are just facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion — which makes them an adversary to be sure, and one with a very distinct visage, but not, in themselves, the principal enemy.

“There is, admittedly, nothing neat and tidy in this, yet it is characteristic of late twentieth-century struggle that nationalists, compelled to fight both foreign invaders and their own collaborating ruling class, face nearly insurmountable challenges under the worst possible conditions. The totalizing character of such struggle, with its universalization of enmity and its confusion of opponents, again owes a great deal to the breakdown of the Eurocentric system of nation-states after 1945, for this breakdown, in addition to threatening the existence of white people and denying a future to their children, completely undermined the traditional European ‘bracketing’ of war — to such an extent that it now increasingly pits the state against the nation, conflates the forces of civil war, revolution, and national liberation, and entails a struggle that is as much about class as it is about race. This makes it very difficult to designate the principal enemy.”

The definition of the enemy is no way exclusive. To define a particular group as the principal enemy is not to say that other groups are not enemies. If, as O’Meara suggests, it is the system rather than the Jews which is the principal enemy, this is not to say that the Jews are not an important part of the system and are not an enemy. It does not mean the elimination of Jews and Jewish influence from Western societies is not imperative. It simply means that nationalists should address the Jewish problem as part of the larger problem of subversion and decadence afflicting Western societies. The Jewish problem cannot be understood by focusing upon the Jews exclusively, or combated by fighting the Jews exclusively. The political project of White nationalism must be against the system and not simply against the Jews.

Enlarging the definition of the enemy may appear to make things more complex and more difficult for ourselves. But this is a matter of recognising our enemies as enemies rather than of choosing enemies. They are what they are, and they will not go away if we fail to recognise them as enemies. Our attitude to their numbers should be that of the German saying: “Many enemies, much honour!”

But defining the enemy is not enough. Faye makes this point very well in his critique of Carl Schmitt in Archeofuturism (London: Arktos Media, 2010), in which he writes (p. 152):

“But in limiting the essence of politics to the identification of one’s enemy, he only goes halfway and forgets an essential point. His definition of politics lacks a positive dimension, both spiritual and anthropological. The essence of politics also includes the definition of one’s folk and who is part of it. It implies an answer to the question: why are we fighting — for what values? This is an affirmative view of politics: a constructive, organic and long-term view, not a merely critical and mechanistic one.”

Faye goes on to write (p. 153):

“The essence of politics might be defined as the formulation and accomplishment of the destiny of the people. This implies hostility towards an enemy, but also a voluntaristic reflection on a project of civilisation. I feel that the Nietzschean concept of ‘will to power’ — understood as something pertaining to historical development and not mere war-mongering — could help formulate the essence of politics. . . .

“The essence of politics . . . is aesthetic and architectural in nature: it consists of a long-term vision of a collective future. The true politician is an artist, a drafter of projects, a sculptor of history. He is someone who can immediately answer the questions: who is part of my people and what are their values? Who are its enemies and how can we fight and defeat them? And finally: What destiny should we choose to acquire power and carve out a place for ourselves in history?

“The essence of politics pertains to historical development. It consists in building a civilisation, starting from a folk.”

I think that what O’Meara is really criticizing among many White nationalists is their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project. It may be significant that the latter point has been largely ignored by commentators. If we are to break the grip of the Jews, we have to do more than hate this hateful people, we have to inspire and mobilize our own people according to our own project of civilization.

I think that what O’Meara is really criticizing among many White nationalists is their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project. It may be significant that the latter point has been largely ignored by commentators. If we are to break the grip of the Jews, we have to do more than hate this hateful people, we have to inspire and mobilize our own people according to our own project of civilization.

Don’t try to rewrite the essay. If O’Meara thinks there’s a “lack of a political project,” then that specifically is what he should write. And actually, if that’s what he would write, then I would agree with him. Then the title of this essay should have been, “White Nationalism Is Not Political Inaction.” But that’s not its title, is it?

And how does the degree of focus on the Jews preclude a political project? The one doesn’t negate the other. American Renaissance has zero focus on Jews. Where is its “political project”?

As for “inadequate definition of the enemy,” I’d say the opposite is true, and that a focus on some vague, nebulous “system” is hopelessly inadequate, because it takes away human agency, which is all important. The “system” doesn’t write Hollywood propaganda and direct it. Individual Jews do. And people fight flesh-and-blood enemies more aggressively than they fight abstractions. Stalin realized this during WWII.

As for doing “more than hating,” well, obviously. Who in the world is saying, “It’s enough to just hate and do nothing?” Where are people saying such things? I’ve never encountered them. Talk about a straw man . . .

But “hate and do nothing” does describe what a lot of people end up doing. Of course they would not describe it that way. But when you do put it that way, and they see that the shoe fits, they might be shamed into changing their ways.

I belonged to a group once whose who litmus issues were being anti-Jew and anti-non-white. Anti-non-white did not mean pro-white, because discussions of who exactly we are were always shouted down as “divisive.” So we could not really say what we were fighting for. And in the end, what did we do? Not much, and that was often done badly, and probably to no net positive effect. Hate and do nothing? Pretty much.

I think that what O’Meara is really criticizing among many White nationalists is their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project. It may be significant that the latter point has been largely ignored by commentators. If we are to break the grip of the Jews, we have to do more than hate this hateful people, we have to inspire and mobilize our own people according to our own project of civilization.

THAT paragraph is worthy of a thread in its own right; Hell, it’s worthy of books. Northwest Republic novels, to be exact, and more.

I’m not sure what the limits are here on criticism of Pierce and the “National” Alliance; apparently you can’t criticize Pierce, or his “National” Alliance. I would appreciate clarification on this.

I have been constructively criticizing Pierce and his “National” Alliance because they exemplify the model for White Nationalist organizations for the last half-century, a period marked by stunning, almost willful, ineptitude, leading to one failure after another. Is this by coincidence?

Pierce and his “National” Alliance are the perfect examples, to state the case charitably, of a grand misfire of any attempt to perform what White Republican believes Michael O’Meara defines as the central issue – “their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project,” to use White Republican’s elegantly precise formulation.

Once again, “their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project.” If there is any better definition of Pierce and his “National” Alliance, I can not imagine it. Listen to the ADV’s, and notice how Pierce never ended with a call to action, especially the most effective action of all, forming an above-ground political organization, as Rockwell had planned.

When you do nothing, nothing works.

Now, as to what works.

A Mr. Harold Covington has been working on something called a Northwest Republic. It seems to be an ideal solution, indeed, the very opposite of such impotent Piercian projects as the series of disconnected, already divided and thus easily conquered, “White Zion.”

Fourmyle: “Listen to the ADV’s, and notice how Pierce never ended with a call to action”

Pierce’s recorded speeches are great in themselves. They are satisfying on the intellectual level and he was often funny. Trainspotter wrote somewhere about him: “I suspect that a lot of our brightest people got their start with Pierce, who offered insightful and incisive analysis in a way that nobody else was.” Insightful and incisive are the right words.

Alex Kurtagic wrote on some other blog about White people: “It is true that many will not learn, that some will learn from experience, that a very few will learn from reason. But learning is not always necessary: there is a subset who will seize on our narrative and adopt it as their own, simply because it resonates with them at an instinctive level”. I think this is not very different from the method used by Alex Linder to engage people.

I think that Pierce was good at communicating with his listeners at the instinctive level. He did sound persuasive, not just because he used verifiable arguments, but because he presented a coherent worldview and a plausible narrative that did resonate with his listeners. On the Jewish question, it is useful to listen both to people like K.MacDonald and like William Pierce.

Fourmyle: “Listen to the ADV’s, and notice how Pierce never ended with a call to action”

Pierce’s recorded speeches are great in themselves. They are satisfying on the intellectual level and he was often funny. Trainspotter wrote somewhere about him: “I suspect that a lot of our brightest people got their start with Pierce, who offered insightful and incisive analysis in a way that nobody else was.” Insightful and incisive are the right words.

All of that could have been done with Kevin Alfred Strom writing the ADV’s, and editing the final tape with Pierce’s spoken words. It would be “Uncle Bill’s Table Talk,” and could have been done for very little.

That’s very different from Rockwell’s National YOUTH Alliance, which Pierce made his own “National” Alliance. You don’t need the most remote pretense of having a NATIONAL organization, to do “Uncle Bill’s Table Talk.”

Remember, Rockwell’s goal was to have a NATIONAL political organization to represent the Race. John deNugent did great job of recruiting simply going door to door! People hunger for the Truth, and deNugent offered it. Effectiveness! Can’t have THAT, can we? Pierce simply took the money and ran to Hillsboro, West Virginia, mighty center of world media and political power.

Rockwell’s Dream was gelded, and reduced to a taped radio show, “Tonight’s Entertainment.” This could have been done out of a rented room in Arlington, Virginia, near the former HQ of the ANP. The distance between Arlington, Virginia, and Hillsboro, West Virginia, guaranteed Pierce would never have to deal with Racial political issues save in the most safe, abstract manner.

Alex Kurtagic wrote on some other blog about White people: “It is true that many will not learn, that some will learn from experience, that a very few will learn from reason. But learning is not always necessary: there is a subset who will seize on our narrative and adopt it as their own, simply because it resonates with them at an instinctive level”. I think this is not very different from the method used by Alex Linder to engage people.

And Linder’s method has been how effective? Look at the great people who were inspired by what VNN promised, and what they did, for free – and see how many of them became disillusioned with the New Arkhamites driving away everyone that knows how to dress in public. Think of “Geoff Beck,” who did his own program, “The Truth Is No Defense.” “Beck” also read James Mason’s “Siege” into podcasts. Haven’t heard from him, or so many excellent people, for so long. Think there’s a reason for that?

How about Linder’s podcasts of “Free Talk Live?” They were actually quite good – Aegis introduced the topics, and Chain provided a great counterpoint to Linder’s comments, which were worthy of his talents. He really was the Mencken of The Cause. Incidentally, the best moment of these was one that went way long, where “Briseis” – another person who has left – asked the question, “Why aren’t we attracting better men to The Cause?” Everyone looked in the mirror, left that question alone, and changed the topic. Too bad, because it was a great question, and a singularly important question. The answers do not flatter White Nationalism as it was, and rightfully so.

So, yes, Linder engages people, and the New Arkhamites have them flee in fear, horror, and revulsion. If that is someone’s idea of being effective, fine. Rockwell – and I – would disagree with you.

I think that Pierce was good at communicating with his listeners at the instinctive level. He did sound persuasive, not just because he used verifiable arguments, but because he presented a coherent worldview and a plausible narrative that did resonate with his listeners. On the Jewish question, it is useful to listen both to people like K.MacDonald and like William Pierce.

Instincts are nice, but to what end are they used? Clearly, Pierce never intended to do something effective, like form the national political organization Rockwell dreamt of, a NATIONAL Alliance. No, and remember, Rockwell’s formulation was of a National YOUTH Alliance – a long-term, Racially-based, program.

As I understand Rockwell, his goal was for the National YOUTH Alliance to form an organization that would lead to the formation of, and support for, “political soldiers.” We see how far Pierce went with those ideas, in spite of the fact that people were asking him to Do Something, NATIONALLY, in terms of political organization, as Rockwell wished.

The “National” Alliance Moment of Rockwell’s Dream died with Pierce. “Nothing to see here. folks, just move on…”

The “political soldier” concept is worthy of further exploration. All of this is done, of course, in an “apple-pie, strictly-legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)

Fourmyle: “Listen to the ADV’s, and notice how Pierce never ended with a call to action”

Pierce’s recorded speeches are great in themselves. They are satisfying on the intellectual level and he was often funny. Trainspotter wrote somewhere about him: “I suspect that a lot of our brightest people got their start with Pierce, who offered insightful and incisive analysis in a way that nobody else was.” Insightful and incisive are the right words.

Yes, the ADV’s Kevin Alfred Strom wrote, and William Luther Pierce performed, are very good examples of “Tonight’s Entertainment.” It’s all they were.

Rockwell wanted a National YOUTH Alliance,” to lay the foundation for forming political soliders, who, in time, would influence the extant parties, and become the living foundation of our own political party.

Pierce gelded that into a “National” Alliance, and proceeded to have nothing to do with effective political organization, while writing of acts of revolutionary folly, using armed force against the most powerful and effective military and intelligence services in the history of the world.

Alex Kurtagic wrote on some other blog about White people: “It is true that many will not learn, that some will learn from experience, that a very few will learn from reason. But learning is not always necessary: there is a subset who will seize on our narrative and adopt it as their own, simply because it resonates with them at an instinctive level”. I think this is not very different from the method used by Alex Linder to engage people.

It might not be “very different from the method used by Alex Linder to engage people,” and more’s the pity, for it’s about as effective as Alex Linder in engaging people.

Actually, Linder is a perfect example of Piercian “engagement.” Note that both attract on the basis of good ideas, the best Ideals, and good writing. (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom) What has Linder actually accomplished? He has attracted many really good people – “Geoff Beck,” who did a podcast of James Mason’s “Siege,” as well as his podcasts, “The Truth Is No Defense.” GONE, never to be heard from again. “Lita from New York?” GONE, never to be heard from again.

Again, Linder is a perfect example of Piercian “engagement.” He did a very good podcast called “Free Talk Live. ” It featured Aegis doing the topic introductions, commentary by Chain, and excellent analysis by Linder. It died, but the best moment was one with “Briseis,”where she asked, “Why can’t (The Movement) attract worthwhile men?” The sound of embarrassment drew the critical distinction between Rockwell, VNN/F’s “Hugh,”and Harold Covington versus Pierce and Linder.

I think that Pierce was good at communicating with his listeners at the instinctive level. He did sound persuasive, not just because he used verifiable arguments, but because he presented a coherent worldview and a plausible narrative that did resonate with his listeners. On the Jewish question, it is useful to listen both to people like K.MacDonald and like William Pierce.

Rockwell wanted the National YOUTH Alliance to form the foundation of political soldiers. The NF, versus the BNP, if you will. Well, we see how well our side does in those contests, don’t we, Charlie Brown?

Pierce simply blamed the Jews, with the sort of oppositional defiance that worked for the fundraising efforts of the John Birch Society. He also contributed to the demoralization of his listeners, by describing vast, transnational conspiracies, that made you feel helpless in the face of their awesome majesty, and justified in doing nothing whatsoever about it, as they were so infinitely powerful.

“Useful,” you say?

To what end? Pierce ended his speeches with his desired activism for his listeners, the famous Four Words of William Luther Pierce: “Tune In Next Time.” Man, that really inspires me! Now, what to do? Oh yeah… “Tune In Next Time.” Back to ESPN!

What will you tell your Posterity in 2050 as to why things are the way they are, and why you did so little about it?

Ineffective, easily discredited, and laughably oversimplified attacks on Jews appear daily in the WNist-sphere. An example is the typical WNist treatment of the genocidal 1965 immigration act. WNists make the demonstrably false statement all the time that “Jews did the immigration act.” It’s not true. The truth is that organized Jewry lobbied for it, pushed it, agitated for it, and drove it, but they did not put it into effect alone. Ted Kennedy and a White Gentile Congress passed it into law, along with LBJ, a White Gentile.

I believe attacking, confronting, exposing and NAMING Jewry has to be one of our highest priorities. I don’t support self-censorship on the JQ such as that found at A3P and alt right. The problem is not naming the Jew per se but rather how the Jew is named. Are we naming the Jew in a convincing manner or in a way that can easily discredited in the eyes of intelligent neutrals? How does it help Whites to argue “Jews did the immigration act” when the enemy can just turn around and point to Ted Kennedy, LBJ and the White Congress?

Ignoring the White Gentile role in advancing the Jewish agenda makes WNists look like unsophisticated fools. It undermines the main goal of drawing attention to the Jewish agenda in the first place which is to expose Jewry’s implacable hatred of White people and their desire for White genocide.

Recalling the studies of identical twins separated very early in life- the now grown twins were asked a few questions, and the answers correlated. Some questions, like attitudes toward the death penalty, showed no correlation. Others showed large correlations, the largest being politics- R=0.62. In social science, even a 0.10 R value can be considered good. 0.62 is a real eyebrow-raiser.

So it seems that political views are largely hereditary. Information is being processed differently. No communication is possible.

“The “National” Alliance Moment of Rockwell’s Dream died with Pierce.”

“I have been constructively criticizing Pierce and his “National” Alliance because they exemplify the model for White Nationalist organizations for the last half-century, a period marked by stunning, almost willful, ineptitude, leading to one failure after another.”

William Pierce created an organization with ~1000 members spread throughout 26 states in America. The National Alliance and its work remains probably the single biggest reason why most of us are WNs today. And yet Pierce “ruined” Rockwell’s dream?

1. Contra Karsten, I’m not trying to “rewrite” Michael O’Meara’s article. I habitually read things in the light of other things I have read. In this case, I have read O’Meara’s article in the light of his other writings. I consider this method of contextualization and interpretation to be valid. While I might have misinterpreted O’Meara’s work, I’ve actually read and thought about it, unlike those who have reflexively denounced him as a philo-Semite.

2. I think that the Jewish problem requires a multidisciplinary approach if it is to be properly understood and addressed. This mutidisciplinary approach involves scholarship, political thinking, and propaganda. These are different disciplines and should be treated as such. They should all have a place within White nationalism. This is not to say that there are no tensions between these disciplines.

The definition of the enemy is not defined in so many words by a dictionary, it is defined by the behaviour of a group opposed to another group. Within this group there can be different levels and methods of understanding the enemy.

Karsten is probably right to say that “people fight flesh-and-blood enemies more aggressively than they fight abstractions.” However, his comments indicate that he is making a false dichotomy between abstract and concrete definitions of the enemy (this might be a matter of glib generalization and poor wording). They are not mutually exclusive, although their emphasis on one or the other might vary according to the discipline being exercised and the context in which it is exercised. Communists could define the capitalist system as the enemy while militating against particular targets within the capitalist system. This didn’t seem to dampen their aggressiveness in any way. However, this approach probably required the careful formation of opinion among communists, such as discussed in Douglas Hyde’s Dedication and Leadership.

I think we need to raise the level of political intelligence among White nationalists and that this requires a more mature understanding of the Jewish problem.

3. I recall reading someone comment at Counter-Currents a while ago that “the more anti-Semitism the better.” This is a very poor formula. What we need is more effective anti-Semitism. Not just any anti-Semitism will do. We need to put anti-Semitism within its proper place in White nationalist thought and to express it in effective forms.

Some people appear to resent the idea that anti-Semitism should be an element or derivative of White nationalism rather than its very essence.

4. Jewish power and influence is relative rather than absolute. Kevin MacDonald touches upon these things in the concluding chapter of The Culture of Critique. The works by Salter and Blalock that he mentions sound particularly interesting. If the Jews are strong, it is because we are weak. If we are weak, part of the reason for our weakness is that we have neglected politics in the sense that Guillaume Faye defines it.

5. The problem of subversion and decadence is larger than the Jewish problem as incarnated by the Jews and the power and influence that they directly exercise. Many anti-Jewish writers — including Eugen Dühring, Anthony M. Ludovici, Julius Evola, William Gayley Simpson, Revilo P. Oliver, Ivor Benson, and Wilmot Robertson — have clearly recognized this.

There is a very good chapter on the indirect influence of the Jews in Georges Batault’s Le problème juif. Batault noted that just as there can be Greco-Roman traditions in the absence of Greeks and Romans, there can be Jewish traditions in the absence of Jews. Puritanism and its derivatives provide a striking example of this. Jews hardly figured among the Puritans, but Puritanism was powerfully influenced by the Bible, and Puritanism helped to make America in a very real sense un-European and anti-European.

6. The Jews are part of the system. Reformists can think that it is possible and desirable to eliminate the Jews from the system while leaving the system intact. Revolutionaries think that both the Jews and the system must be eliminated: if you want to get rid of one, you must get rid of the other.

It should be remembered that National Socialism was not simply an anti-Semitic project, it was a revolutionary political project against the system. Indeed, Adolf Hitler reportedly expressed a greater affinity with Communists than to Social Democrats because both the National Socialists and the Communists were opposed to the system.

7. I think that O’Meara is right that White nationalism must be fought “with ideas today, in the streets tomorrow, through force of arms in the end.” I think that violence will be inevitable and necessary. In saying this, I have no desire to incite or glamorize violence, or to posture as a hardliner.

René Girard maintained that political communities are founded upon acts of violence. White ethnostates will surely be no exception. As Enrico Corradini put it, “Nations are not acquired; they are conquered.”

I should perhaps try to adapt the ideas of Roger Mucchielli’s La subversion to revolutionary nationalism. Muchielli’s ideas relating to the theory and practice of contestation, which he addresses from the perspective of social psychology, could be of great practical value if properly adapted. They cogently explain how and why aggressive minorities can exercise influence out of proportion to their numbers. We’ve seen what the Jews can do. It’s time for us to see what we can do.

8. I would suggest to Fourmyle of Ceres that he stop taking routine potshots at William L. Pierce and the National Alliance. While I think there is a place for constructive criticism of the personalities, organizations, ideas, and activities of the past and present — including those of Pierce and the National Alliance — Fourmyle of Ceres risks coming across as petty, fixated upon specific personalities and organizations, and fixated upon the past with his comments.

As I believe that Fourmyle of Ceres has his heart in the right place, that he is not interested in provoking useless quarrels, and that he is more interested in fixing problems than fixing blame, I will only question his methods rather than his motives. His routine potshots against Pierce and the National Alliance obscure rather than illustrate the points he wants to make. It needlessly antagonizes people who, like myself, respect Pierce and his work.

Fourmyle of Ceres might make his points more persuasively by concentrating more on White nationalist culture in general rather than on specific personalities and organizations. He should place the former in the foreground and the latter in the background in his comments. It’s more a matter of reforming White nationalist culture than of belittling or denigrating this or that personality or organization.

Fourmyle of Ceres might also make his points more persuasively by being less verbose and less repetitive. He should focus on developing ideas rather than simply repeating them. And he should avoid using metaphors and slogans indiscriminately or excessively.

You have whetted our appetites with “I should perhaps try to adapt the ideas of Roger Mucchielli’s La subversion to revolutionary nationalism. Muchielli’s ideas relating to the theory and practice of contestation, which he addresses from the perspective of social psychology, could be of great practical value if properly adapted. ”

I’ve looked up “La Subversion” at Amazon, and it’s only available in French.

You would do us all a great favor by writing an article for C-C discussing Muchielli’s thinking as it relates to “theory and practice of contestation”. Your comments here make it obvious that you are an excellent writer, and capable of this. I look forward to it.

I’m flattered by your comments. I intend to present a case to a certain publisher that Roger Mucchielli’s La subversion (Paris: C.L.C., 1976) should be translated into English — I don’t think that I’m up to translating it myself — and I should write about its ideas at Counter-Currents. Before that, however, there’s a very important article I need to finish work on, one that deals with contestation.

La subversion is an important work that I learned about by chance. After I found out more about it, I was determined to get a copy, and with some difficulty I eventually got a copy. It was well worth the effort. Vladimir Volkoff and John Laughland have justly characterized La subversion as a minor classic.

It concerns me that many important works have effectively been ignored, forgotten, buried. I feel that when one finds such a work, one has a duty to make it more widely known, and to pass it on to others. La subversion is such a work.

Mucchielli cogently argues that modern warfare is more psychological than military. I think his ideas can be fruitfully applied to (1) the subversive establishment within Western states and societies; (2) the “coloured revolutions” sponsored by the “New World Order”; (3) the theory and practice of contestation; and (4) fourth generation warfare.

Mucchielli’s book is particularly good in explaining how subversive forces can demoralize, immobilize, and overcome a much larger opposition. This is essential to their success.

It is remarkable how successful the New Left was despite its small size, organizational anarchy, and lack of popularity. The vast majority of students were either passively hostile or indifferent to the New Left. I recently found some significant data in A. James Gregor’s The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics on just how unpopular the New Left really was.

I’m particularly interested in “weaponizing” Mucchielli’s ideas on the theory and practice of contestation. Mucchielli expresses his ideas in brief, general, and descriptive terms. I want to make them more practical by putting them in more detailed, specific, and prescriptive terms.

White Repub, it’s not flattery. You just introduced us all to something we all want to explore.

May I suggest you let Greg know about the possibility of an article or review on Muchielli? I too am interested in the “weaponizing” potential by reverse-engineering the descriptive into the prescriptive.

Also, please keep the Counter-currents “management” apprised of the status of that English translation project if it comes to pass. I’d hate to see this slip down the memory hole. Thanks.

Roger Mucchielli’s La subversion is a singular work in the vast body of literature dealing with subversion, most of which focuses on specific subversive movements, groups, or forms of subversion (e.g. propaganda, terrorism, guerilla warfare). It addresses subversion in general in terms of social psychology.

I should initially focus on introducing the ideas of La subversion by getting it translated into English and writing about its ideas. However, properly “weaponizing” the ideas of this book will require more work, for the book has significant limitations. First, because it is a pioneering work, it has the theoretical defects and limitations that all such works have. Identifying and correcting these will require critical study and intensive discussion. Second, because it was published in the 1970s, it is somewhat dated. Third, because it is a short work and addresses subversion in general terms, it is somewhat schematic and simplistic. La subversion should be treated as an introduction rather than a conclusion. As I previously indicated, its ideas have several contemporary applications, and should be developed accordingly.

Weaponizing ideas requires much more than a layman’s knowledge of them. Weaponizing ideas requires one to live and work with them in order to forge them into effective weapons.

Perhaps ideas should be weaponized on an open-source basis: the more people who work on them, the more effective they are, for reasons well explained in John Robb’s Brave New War. If I’m not the best person to develop certain ideas, I can at least introduce them to others, some of whom might develop them further.

I’m interested in studying, developing, and applying Mucchielli’s ideas. This should involve studying past and present movements, groups, and techniques; studying social psychology; being involved in activism; and writing. I’m also interested in examining media relating to activism. This might involve looking at the media published by François Duprat and considering how comparable media might be produced today for the education of nationalist militants.

8. I would suggest to Fourmyle of Ceres that he stop taking routine potshots at William L. Pierce and the National Alliance. While I think there is a place for constructive criticism of the personalities, organizations, ideas, and activities of the past and present — including those of Pierce and the National Alliance — Fourmyle of Ceres risks coming across as petty, fixated upon specific personalities and organizations, and fixated upon the past with his comments.

Greg Johnson’s year-long moratorium takes care of that. I don’t think I come across as “petty, fixated upon specific personalities and organizations, and fixated upon the past…”

I am focused on why White Nationalism has a record of stunning ineptitude for the last century, and it is only correct to focus on those who are most prominent in this enterprise. Absent that, we are like Children, seeing the world being reborn anew, every day. The lack of Institutional memories makes my point. I do try to listen and learn. I then try to do better.

As I believe that Fourmyle of Ceres has his heart in the right place, that he is not interested in provoking useless quarrels, and that he is more interested in fixing problems than fixing blame, I will only question his methods rather than his motives. His routine potshots against Pierce and the National Alliance obscure rather than illustrate the points he wants to make. It needlessly antagonizes people who, like myself, respect Pierce and his work.

My “routine potshots” are aimed at pretty much everybody, without fear or favor. The exceptions are few, and worthwhile – Rockwell, Covington, John deNugent, Bob Whitaker and Horus the Avenger, and many of the primary writers at counter-currents. The “routine potshots” are based on those who routinely Dream of Yesterday, use News and Views about the Jews as an excuse to Do Nothing Which Is Effective – which they do quite well.

Fourmyle of Ceres might make his points more persuasively by concentrating more on White nationalist culture in general rather than on specific personalities and organizations. He should place the former in the foreground and the latter in the background in his comments. It’s more a matter of reforming White nationalist culture than of belittling or denigrating this or that personality or organization.

“White nationalist culture in general” is simply one breathtaking panorama of people you would not want to be in a room with, seeking to live in a Past that never really was. It is the work of these “personalities and organizations” that Create and Form “White nationalist culture in general,” and woe be unto us, that this is the case.

Hence, and for other reasons, my continuing references to exemplars such as Rockwell, and Harold Covington; especially Harold Covington.

Fourmyle of Ceres might also make his points more persuasively by being less verbose and less repetitive. He should focus on developing ideas rather than simply repeating them. And he should avoid using metaphors and slogans indiscriminately or excessively.

One, I am “verbose and repetitive” because we are crossing new ground here, and the person who wants to be effective must be the functional equivalent of a political soldier – defining and refining the issues and how to get our points across in an effective manner.

Two, I DO develop new ideas. I repeat them because we have new visitors all of the time, and I use these opportunities to not just repeat them, but to refine them, as well. I’ll continue this comment in my concluding paragraph, as it might spread a bit more Light on the situation. We of the Faustian Culture like to do that, you know.

Three, as to “using metaphors and slogans indiscriminately or excessively,” I try to be discriminatory, in an Elite sense of the term, and if it seems I am “excessive,” it because, as a political solider, I know the importance of repetition in assisting political education.

My larger issues remains this: too many think White nationalist political culture sprang out of the foreheads of certain people. It didn’t. That the best Idea seems to attract some of the best and worst people to its cause says something. That nothing I repeat nothing can be shown in terms of political and/or cultural change for a century of self-identified “White nationalists,” is all you need to know that we must do something different, and much, much better.

The people who hear us must see that we offer something more, and something better. We’ve had our Masculine Spirits slowly sucked out of us. We need to recover and transform so many things, and above all we must address these issues in unity, and not in isolation. THAT is why we need a metapolitical order, and temporal political, economic, and cultural solutions that we define on OUR terms, to fulfill OUR Destiny.

My opening sig deals with genocide, stated as abruptly as possible. My closing sig deals with the best hope we have for temporal resolution of the issues before us.

If you notice, I address Solutions to the status quo. I always do. The NSDAP had masterful political theoreticians and cultural analysts, and they also had a range of programs to meet the temporal needs of the people they were trying to attract. They offered Something Better.

That is our duty, as well. Incidentally, did I mention I was the one banging the drum about the contributions thermometer?

Incidentally, I keep asking people to define the world outside their bedroom window in the year 2050. Only two have tried in the slightest. This speaks volumes as to how much the best of us really think about the future, much less what we will do to make it better for us.

I’ll take your excellent advice, and focus on developing the Ideas on how we get from where we are, to where our Posterity will be proud of us. As well, perhaps, diary entries from those who Took The Gap to get us to 2050. This certainly supports the metapolitical theme of counter-currents.

There are many items in your courteous reply I could reply to here, but for reasons of time and brevity, I will only make a few comments:

1. You regularly post long comments at Counter-Currents. Your comments might be more effective if individual comments were to address fewer points at greater depth and with less repetition. Your target audience consists of people who can remember what they read. Repetition can obscure one’s message if it bores or irritates one’s audience.

Writing to clearly communicate the points one wants to make requires skill, tact, and patience. There is often a big difference between what one intends to say and what others hear. It is necessary to carefully frame one’s ideas, to define one’s terms, and to measure the emphasis one puts on things. It is also necessary to carefully examine how people respond to what one says, to improve one’s ideas, to improve one’s communication skills.

Properly defining, developing, and expressing ideas can be laborious. Many people expect good results from mediocre efforts. But this is an area where mediocrity ensures failure.

The difference between immature and mature ideas is often comparable to that between iron ore and stainless steel.

I myself intend to work at improving my writing style by (a) using fewer references and quotations, and less jargon; (b) being more selective in what I write about; and (c) adding value to ideas by making them more accessible, relevant, and useful.

2. A focus on past personalities and organizations can suggest that one is stuck in the past. It can smack of sterile recrimination (“it’s their fault . . .”), of futile regret over paths that were taken or not taken (“if only . . .”), of an orientation towards the conditions of the past rather than the present and the future. It’s much easier to do this than to theorize and implement practical solutions.

There’s no shortage of work to do. Perhaps you should identify a particular area that interests you, develop expertise in that area, and use your expertise in the service of White nationalism. If you’re particularly interested in alternative economics, for example, concentrate your efforts in that area. Big ideas are hollow ideas if one lacks the knowledge and skills to make them a reality.

3. There are many times and places within the future beyond that outside one’s bedroom window in 2050. Your question might be better stated in different terms and divided into smaller questions, the answers to which can then be put together. For example: What kind of world do you want to live in? What future do you want your people to have? What kind of person do you want to be? What should you do with your life? How do you go from where you are today to where you want to be tomorrow?

Even the most thoughtful people think less about the future than they should. As H. L. Mencken wrote over a century ago, “a philosopher, in a lifetime, spends less hours pondering the destiny of the race than he gives over to wondering if it will rain tomorrow and to meditating upon the toughness of steaks, the dustiness of roads, the stuffiness of railway coaches and the brigandage of gas companies.”

How should one imagine the future? When answering this question, one should keep in mind Denis Gabor’s remark: “The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented.” I regard long-term predictions of the future with great scepticism. The future is too large, complex, and fluid to be accurately predicted. We need to think of the future in terms analogous to those of military planners planning for possible wars in the next decade. This means seeing the future in open-ended and voluntarist terms, as something riddled by continuities, discontinuities, and uncertainties, as something that we cannot control but that we can influence and prepare for. We should not try to predict the future. We should instead imagine possible futures in order to be mentally prepared for the future. We should keep a finger on the pulse of the forces that are shaping the future. We should regard our ideas concerning the future as working hypotheses requiring constant review. We need the metis of an Odysseus rather than the prophecies of an oracle.

4. If and when I have the time, I should perhaps read William Brustein’s book, The Logic of Evil. Brustein, a Jewish academic, contended that the rise of the NSDAP owed much to its ability to articulate the economic interests of large segments of the German population more effectively than other parties. National Socialism was a socialism for an entire nation rather than a single class. I think Brustein effectively remarks that analyses of National Socialist ideology tend to focus on what Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and to ignore the literature that actually reached and influenced National Socialist activists and voters.

1. You regularly post long comments at Counter-Currents. Your comments might be more effective if individual comments were to address fewer points at greater depth and with less repetition. Your target audience consists of people who can remember what they read. Repetition can obscure one’s message if it bores or irritates one’s audience.

I try to do both, when possible. Counter-Currents has a philosophy, and the practice of metapolitics, at its foundation. This requires more words because we are dealing with the broadest of issues. And, too many newcomers might hit the site, be bewildered by the people who are speaking in terms they can not define in their personal political system.

2. A focus on past personalities and organizations can suggest that one is stuck in the past. It can smack of sterile recrimination (“it’s their fault . . .”), of futile regret over paths that were taken or not taken (“if only . . .”), of an orientation towards the conditions of the past rather than the present and the future. It’s much easier to do this than to theorize and implement practical solutions.

This is where we substantially disagree. I only discuss “past personalities and organizations,” from the perspective of learning what they did, and didn’t do, that we may learn. There are too many dogs that don’t bark, and I try to fill in the gaps as best I can. I only mention He Who Can Not Be Named For A Year because everyone cites him, first, and cites him as the Great Exemplar. That everything in “organized” White nationalism came to a halt with his passing, Bill White excepted, says more about us than many feel comfortable seeing, much less saying. Am I judicious? I think so. My placing HWCNBNFAY between Rockwell and Covington was rather unique, and rather accurate. THAT forced the identification of the dog that did not bark, the total lack of political organization, and subsequent political ineffectiveness. That stunning criticism must not be avoided as we ask, “How can we do ‘better’? What would ‘better’ look like?”

Greg Johnson hit on the major issue as to the caliber of person these organizations, based as they are on incorrect political philosophies, have attracted. They are usually nihilists, having accepted The Adversary’s Words, Definitions, and Analytical Framework. How you can do “better” with such people remains a challenge. A national political organization could have worked as the foundational framework to form small scale local organizations, “Reading Societies,” and “Youth Organizations.” That this was never remotely considered by any one between Rockwell and Covington says one thing.

Such an organization, with dues-paying embers, might have provided the necessary opportunities and financial support for Sam Francis, for example. Francis was THIS CLOSE to being one of us, but it would have cut off his last funding from his backers. This national organization would be there as gap fillers, using his remarkable talents to flesh out our Ideals into workable Ideas, leading thoughts on what to do, and why.

How we expect to be effective, define it how you will, without an coherent political philosophy, or a coherent political organization, however nebulous, is beyond me.

And, unlike so many others, I don’t just look to the past. I look to the future. My comments on the Northwest Republic, specifically as an Analytical Model, take the Lessons of History, and apply them to build a Future History. I can live there in my Mind, for now. That’s fine. For now. I can imagine Michael O’Meara at the lectern of the HWMNBNFAY Memorial Chapel, at the Republic’s Military Academy at Sandpoint. I can also imagine Colin Cleary addressing the student body from that same lectern. That’s fine. For now.

3. There are many times and places within the future beyond that outside one’s bedroom window in 2050….. Your question might be better stated in different terms and divided into smaller questions, the answers to which can then be put together.

That would be useful. I use the 2050 framework to see their capacity to Imagine, and Dream Better. This appears to overwhelm too many people, who will be overwhelmed, unless they take action. More’s the pity, as the future our Ancestors fought and died for their right to Imagine a Destiny, and Manifest it. Even our ability to Dream has been given away.

We should not try to predict the future. We should instead imagine possible futures in order to be mentally prepared for the future. We should keep a finger on the pulse of the forces that are shaping the future. We should regard our ideas concerning the future as working hypotheses requiring constant review. We need the metis of an Odysseus rather than the prophecies of an oracle.

We MUST “try to predict the future.” Absent that, we will awaken in a nation that is a Second World country, with First World enclaves, surrounded by Third World Regions. “Mexico, with snow, and Africans ruling America.”

I used to do scenario modeling, using SIMULA. We constantly reviewed and updated the models, going so far as to create synthetic competition, when he had no single dominant competitor.

There are limits to the visions of oracles. The fatal flaw is they force us to accept fatalism, on their terms. Fatalism is part of the process of demoralization Bezmenov described, and it leads directly to the learned helplessness of nihilism.

We are not helpless. We are Men. We are the Men of the West, the living embodiments of Western Civilization; indeed, Civilization itself. We do need the metis of Odysseus.

Lacking Dr. Sam Francis, is that where you come in? Hope, hope?

4. …I think Brustein effectively remarks that analyses of National Socialist ideology tend to focus on what Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and to ignore the literature that actually reached and influenced National Socialist activists and voters.

The question of how White nationalist groups of the past and present should be analyzed and discussed is a big one. I intend to address this question at length later when writing about François Duprat. Among other things, I intend to discuss the perspective from which Duprat analyzed such groups, which was essentially that of an intelligence analyst rather than a journalist, academic, or polemicist.

Duprat’s historical writings had a genuinely political objective. As he wrote: “To understand the past in order to prepare the future, such is the task of nationalists, if they finally want to participate in the destiny of their nation and to cease being exiles within their own country.” I intend to outline what this might mean in practical terms today. It definitely requires knowledge and an analytical framework that most White nationalists lack today.

I also intend to discuss the media published by Duprat and how comparable media might be produced today.

Regarding Samuel Francis, I have been meaning to study Francis’ work in relation to a national populist-revolutionary nationalist hybrid of the kind that Duprat seems to have envisaged in France.

“I think we need to raise the level of political intelligence among White nationalists and that this requires a more mature understanding of the Jewish problem…”

This comment from White Republican says it all. White Americans, in general, are totally ignorant of history, let alone meta-historical concepts that go a long way in explaining our current state. I would go so far as to say breathtakingly ignorant. The sad fact is that if we, as a people, had not sunk into materialism and decadence, we would not be in this position today. The roots of this go some ways back, but let’s look at the values of the Enlightenment to start with.

Jews have been consummate opportunists. They never miss an opportunity to seize an
opportunity, and they found that opportunity in direct proportion to the European’s abandonment of his most cherished Traditional values. I most certainly agree with taking a long, hard look at the policies they adopt and the attitudes they hold toward White Europeans, which in many cases are overtly hostile; however, to ascribe to them an almost metaphysical evil is simply reductionist. What kind of world would we create if tomorrow, all Jews and other non-whites disappeared from our homelands? We’re going to have to earn our freedom. This means that, in the period known as the interregnum, we must begin to positively construct the world we want to occupy, for ourselves and our children, and this means educating ourselves any way we can so that we have other models to draw on.

Harold Covington has made a good point. In one of his podcasts, he has asked the rhetorical question, “Why is our message so right and the people in the Movement so wrong?” (I’m paraphrasing). This crude anti-Semitism is a good example of why. Many intelligent, thoughtful White Americans have made contact with WN groups, and have been repulsed by crude anti-Semitism or racist rants. It is possible to begin to build a powerful, constructive, dynamic movement to secure our existence and a future for White children without constant references to “sub-human niggers” or “evil kykes.” Which is stronger, the love for our own people or the hatred of the non-white? This is the reason our best and brightest shun us.

The Jew cannot stand in as a substitute for our sloth, ignorance, or cowardice.

Harold Covington has made a good point. In one of his podcasts, he has asked the rhetorical question, “Why is our message so right and the people in the Movement so wrong?” (I’m paraphrasing). This crude anti-Semitism is a good example of why. Many intelligent, thoughtful White Americans have made contact with WN groups, and have been repulsed by crude anti-Semitism or racist rants. It is possible to begin to build a powerful, constructive, dynamic movement to secure our existence and a future for White children without constant references to “sub-human niggers” or “evil kykes.” Which is stronger, the love for our own people or the hatred of the non-white? This is the reason our best and brightest shun us.

Greg Johnson had the seminal insight on this. In effect, they have already been defeated, and have reverted to nihilism, which is about half a step above soft suicide.

This is because of what Bob Whitaker, after Eric Hoffer, calls “(Word)ism.” Simply stated, we take a Word – the symbolic representation of an Idea, and make it into an ideology. That’s what the suffix “Ism.” does. THEN, the ideology tries to become a religion, and we end up worship our own false creations, to our detriment.

Where we have failed over the last century I repeat century, is we have allowed Others to define Who we are, and What we are – particularly, what we Believe. They then slowly, softly, pervert the clear meanings of these words in practice, and we go slowly insane as our Minds can not handle what our Senses are telling us.

So, we are sought almost as a last-ditch effort, as people see us as the last rung on the ladder. Fortunately, it is the right rung; unfortunately, it keeps you on the same ladder, with no way up, no way forward, and the ladder is on fire.

THIS, in turn, derives from the implanted sense of learned helplessness that places us in what Bateson described as a “double bind” state of Consciousness. We are literally afraid to move forward, as we have two choices, bad, and worse. The WNists who lectured us, early and often, on “the Jews” and “the Coloreds” never really offered anything better, much less any way forward. John deNugent has written authoritatively on this.

The only answer came from a moment of non-linear Inspiration. It began when Harold Covington stood outside Chapel Hill High school on his Graduation Day, and swore that the day would come when White kids would not have to suffer as he, and the other White kids, did, suffering the tender mercies of their Oppressors. He didn’t have to act on this. He could have taken the easy road. Fortunately for us, he didn’t.

Greg Johnson and Michael O’Meara have it right: the ultimate answer is the proper relationship with the Metapolitical Order. the best temporal bridge to that is Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic, particularly as an Analytical Model.

Covington intuitively recognized that, given the Game before us, all Racial leaders except Rockwell wanted to make us into better Democrats, or better Republicans. The correct answer was, “None Of The Above.” The correct answer was to Be Better, Do Better, and become the Living Foundation of a new nation, today, in microcosmic preparation for forming that new nation as a State, in a Racial Homeland. Such responsibility offers rewards undreamt of, and the certainty that your Posterity, looking down on what is left of the former United States of America, will sing your praises for thinking of THEM, first, as embodiments of the best of the best Race on Earth.

[…] What do you think of this counter currents article? Do you think our movement focuses too much or too little on Jews or about right? Read more: White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism | Counter-Currents Publishing […]